Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Hi George,

First I'd like to sort of apologize for my long last message and the
sudden end (my refusal to continue the discussion). I'd like hold up
the statement that I don't have time to continue the discussion,
though. But I'd like you to understand that you're putting my in some
kind of double bind here: 

First you state your dissatisfaction with type inference and the
typical functional style of programming in highly subjective terms.

Than you assert that advocates of functional programming are all
elistist (they either pretend not to have the problems you have or
they are not having them, perhaps are only a minority in that, but
they find it cool that they have mastered something other people can't
and have nothing better to offer to you than to assert that you
problems are not real problem etc).

I rather don't see a way to help you in this situation. I could

 - say you're right. But what does that buy you, if I think you don't?
   It certainly doesn't solve you problem with FP.

 - assert that I don't have the problem, and even continue to
   understand yours and try to change you, but than I would fall under
   the second point (I'm a FP smart ass) or under the first point (I
   just pretend against better knowledge that those problem don't
   exists).

In my youth I've been discussing extreme religious beliefs with a
number of people and one thing we noticed, that a lot of belief
systems have a kind of self referentiality built in, which is called
self immunization: It's often core axiom that somebody that denies God
or the specific believe serves the devil (or whatever evil principle)
by that and therefore must have been incited by the devil to do it. Of
course arguments by people influenced by the devil need not to be
considered, since the devil lies and says anything just to unsettle
your belief.

I see a similar (though less radical) self immunization strategy here:
Whatever I say is just typical FP advocate and if what I say is not
expressible in Ada parlance it cannot be good, since Ada comprises
everything and does everything right (I'm perhaps a bit fuzzy and
unjust on the last point, my apologies, if so)

But something different and new can not be mapped to the already known
if it is really new. As far as I see a 'jump' of some sort always has
to be taken in learning something really knew -- there is no sure way
to bootstrap into a new "world of knowledge" or paradigm. 

In my opinion that is the basic learning function of the human brain
which has not been well understood so far, this sudden insight. The
sudden insight has probably something to do with experiencing new
things in action, so it's probably impossible to make somebody
entering into a new paradigm if he wants to be convinced beforehand
that it would be worth it. It's the characteristics of a new paradigm
that you cannot understand its explanations until you have entered it,
so nobody can convince you of the paradigm's value.

I know this sounds a bit religious and indeed the same argument can be
made (and has been made) for any esoteric pseudo science or belief
system. Obviously the choice to want to understand something really
new is motivated by something different than understanding the new
thing and learning its advantages beforehand. I think there is a
pre-rational selection mechanism (e.g. I refuse to even discuss
miracle healers or review the "proofs", even while I admit the
principal positivist restriction of natural sciences and "that we
cannot know everything"). So in a sense: Some things are just not for
some people.

I don't know wether functional programming (and the dratted type
inference) is really for your, which, in the light of the elaborations
above I wouldn't necessarily see as a negative judgement, though. I
don't really know, and the final person to decide on that are you.

My intention was to give some insight on modern type systems and things
that newer languages have, that perhaps make them popular. I do not
want (and from what I said simply cannot) convince anyone of the
usefulness of those features or of the desirability of FP (which is OT
here, but that's where e ended up).

I will be glad to be of assistance if you need to understand certain
_technical_ facets of FP, always assuming that I understand them
myself. I'm open to discussion on alternative (more elegance, better
performance, ...) implementations in functional languages for give
pieces of code. But I've begun to find general value judgements a bit
difficult, as well as the attempts to convince you on the general
value of things you seem not to want to look into.

Yes I have been guilty to indulge in them myself. Mea culpa :-). But
now I have to mend my sinful ways. :-)

Discussion of FP now, please, strictly off c.l.a. And shorter, if possible.

Regards -- Markus