From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.42.203.79 with SMTP id fh15mr15838286icb.27.1432895860852; Fri, 29 May 2015 03:37:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.42.195 with SMTP id c61mr104535qga.11.1432895860716; Fri, 29 May 2015 03:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!h15no145563igd.0!news-out.google.com!4ni96qgh.1!nntp.google.com!z60no4441139qgd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 03:37:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a8wnu3v0.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=105.237.62.132; posting-account=orbgeAkAAADzWCTlruxuX_Ts4lIq8C5J NNTP-Posting-Host: 105.237.62.132 References: <127b004d-2163-477b-9209-49d30d2da5e1@googlegroups.com> <59a4ee45-23fb-4b0e-905c-cc16ce46b5f6@googlegroups.com> <46b2dce1-2a1c-455d-b041-3a9d217e2c3f@googlegroups.com> <87a8wnu3v0.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <44c0cfe6-1026-4755-8eb5-91c82fcbb4a8@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it? From: jan.de.kruyf@gmail.com Injection-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:37:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:26060 Date: 2015-05-29T03:37:40-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 11:31:33 AM UTC+2, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: > Randy Brukardt wrote: > > > We don't. As with all old languages, it's political. We can't remove > > old features (as that would break existing programs), > > But aren't the existing programs being compiled with compilers for the > appropriate (old) versions of the language? > > How large is the actual benefit of maintaining practically full > backwards compatibility? > > Isn't it more a matter of not being able to agree on what is important > to keep, and what isn't? > > > I'd think it's getting close to time to start over with Ada, not > > because of any major problem, but simply the accumulation of > > cruft. The problem is that if you think its hard to convince people to > > use Ada with all of its track record, try doing that with a new > > language with no record. So I don't think there would be much of a > > market for that. > > Isn't that in itself an argument for letting Ada 2020 be a major change, > where backwards compatibility isn't as important as using our current > knowledge to improve the language? I wouldn't want an Ada 2012 program > to be accepted by an Ada 2020 compiler with a different meaning, but I > wouldn't mind it if the Ada 2020 compiler told me that I have to do > things differently in Ada 2020. > > Greetings, > > Jacob > -- > "It is very easy to get ridiculously confused about the > tenses of time travel, but most things can be resolved > by a sufficiently large ego." Let me try to put in my 2 cents here: A while back I was asked to solve an issue on a 486 board, which you will still find in older industrial machines here. So first things first: do a full memory test. And there I was stuck for a full week trying to find / construct a stiffy that would boot and have a working memtest. I remember that I pulled out a very old gcc to re-compile the memtest source. Although gcc is supposedly fully backward compatible. I there had been a concious decision to change, and documemt the change, it would have been easy. But by trying to stay backward compatible a booboo slipped through. j.