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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.3.36 with SMTP id 24mr12456065yhg.44.1432325056588; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:04:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.80.168 with SMTP id c37mr153699qgd.39.1432325056572; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:04:16 -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!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!z60no3272062qgd.0!news-out.google.com!k20ni44848qgd.0!nntp.google.com!z60no3272058qgd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:04:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=78.27.123.114; posting-account=QrZwxQoAAAByl3YAWTpexAk3yBYyZMHn NNTP-Posting-Host: 78.27.123.114 References: <127b004d-2163-477b-9209-49d30d2da5e1@googlegroups.com> <59a4ee45-23fb-4b0e-905c-cc16ce46b5f6@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <46b2dce1-2a1c-455d-b041-3a9d217e2c3f@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it? From: kalvin.news@gmail.com Injection-Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 20:04:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 4333 X-Received-Body-CRC: 176286381 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:25966 Date: 2015-05-22T13:04:16-07:00 List-Id: perjantai 22. toukokuuta 2015 22.41.15 UTC+3 J-P. Rosen kirjoitti: > Le 22/05/2015 19:51, kalvin-nospamhere-.news@gmail.com a =E9crit : > > Yes, I understand. I just wanted to make a point here, that an int > should not be considered type compatible with another int if they are > declared using different typedefs. Neverthless, my argument is still > valid if I had used unsigned int, uint16_t or uint32_t: > >=20 > > typedef uint16_t Cylinder; > > typedef uint16_t Head; > > typedef uint32_t Sector; > >=20 > > The variables of type Cyliner, Head and Sector should be treated by > > the compiler as incompatible and different types unless they are > > explicitly typecasted. > Of course, being a long time supporter of strong typing, I agree with > that view. But if you think in terms of abstract types and problem > domain rather than bits and addresses, don't use C. I see no point in > trying to make a low-level language higher level: use a language > designed to support higher level views. >=20 > To take an analogy: nobody would be so fool as to use a language > designed for making animations on web pages in a real-time context ;-) >=20 > --=20 > J-P. Rosen > Adalog > 2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX > Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00 > http://www.adalog.fr Reality bites. It is very easy to get a decent and free/inexpensive compile= r for almost any microcontroller on the market. And it is quite easy the fi= nd developers how are familiar with C/C++. And it is very hard to convince = managers to invest to new tools that they do not know or understand, or the= ir knowledge is based on outdated information (like "Yeah, I know Ada. One = of my friends worked with Ada in 80's and it was *very* slow, the compiler = produced terrible code and they needed Vax-cluster to run the compiler. Ada= is so big."). So, we are dealing with a cultural, economical and practical= challenges as well as historical burden and bad reputation. I do not claim that even Ada would be the ultimate solution. Someone made a= good point above that, for example Oberon manual is only like 17 pages and= Ada RM is over 1000 pages. There might be something wrong here, and may ex= plain partly why Ada has not gain popularity. In my opinion, one of Ada's problem is that it is not allowed to call a com= piler an Ada compiler if it implements only a subset of the language and th= e compiler has not beed certified. Please correct me if I am wrong here. I = would consider a subset of Ada quite attractive if it provided same functio= nality as a C99, providing Ada's strong type checking and better grammar et= c. - and if the compiler would be available even for the smaller microcontr= ollers for free (in the similar manner as C is available).