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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,78447032bdbeb343 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: Proposal: pragma Assumption Reply-To: anon@anon.org (anon) References: <30917be5-1446-417c-8a4e-18b2f9a1f420@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: <4YX0k.24033$SV4.21438@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:35:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.72.76 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1212435328 12.65.72.76 (Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:35:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:35:28 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:536 Date: 2008-06-02T19:35:28+00:00 List-Id: If you do a little research you will find that Ada is different. Ada is special it help the programmer become a better programmer unlike "C/C++" or FORTRAN, or other languages. JAVA tries to teach the programmer but SUN keep listening to the bad programmers and alters the language. The majority of JAVA programmers state that the "deprecated" error is one of the major complaints of the JAVA language. Every newer version has some common used routines that have been altered or replaced that causes this error, which cases the program to be re-written. For Ada, there is very little in the form of trade-offs. This is stated in the RM and the programmers that primarily use Ada likes it that way, actually we wish it had no trade-offs, but that hard to make it reality. But the "Ravenscar" concept does helps a great deal. Now, there are a lot of "C/C++" people who come to Ada and complain that Ada wont let them create code their way, they want to dirty Ada up like other languages, why should we or the Ada's RM let them. Plus, the concepts of "Portability", "Compatibility" and others are built into Ada and are stated in the RM. So, any change or patch that destroys this should be looked as an attempt to "Kill Ada". Because your patch to the compiler would allow people to violate the RM it should be abandon. One reason is your patch could cause students in classes to fail the course, causing the colleges to complain and stop using Ada. Which will inturn make it harder for companies to use Ada. Aka the "DEATH OF ADA" but that's what "C/C++" programmers wants, the "DEATH OF ADA!" All because you want to modify the language instead of learning and use an alternative way. that the RM and Ada requires you to learn and use. And as for the >> The only "fix" for actively malicious programmers is firing them. I say that too nice. Put that programmer in JAIL for LIFE without access to a computer or the internet! In , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santiago_Urue=F1a?= writes: >> Yes, it is; just change the build script to pass the right compiler >> option. >> >> The only "fix" for actively malicious programmers is firing them. >> >Every language feature involves some trade offs. Is it worth adding >the "overriding" keyword at the cost of introducing a backwards >incompatibility and requiring to change the lexer and the syntax >processing of current compilers, furthermore if the same can be >checked using formal annotations and a external ASIS tool? I'm not >comparing the utility of pragma Assumption with the overriding keyword >(which is a great adition IMHO), but the costs of implementing them to >a compiler are neither the same: it is fairly cheap to add another >pragma so similar to pragma Assert. And the results would be relative >high considering the costs: adding support to a common programming >practice, in a standardized way, and with less risks than nowadays. > >So, should it be added to Ada? I don't know, that's why I'm asking >here: first to the Ada community, to know whether programmers think it >is useful, and after that to the ARG who will decide if it should be >added or not to the language. The first step wasn't bad: nobody of the >(few) people who replied said that he wouldn't use it (but a lot of >answers were more focused on achieving the same effects without adding >more features to the language). But I think I will follow Randy's >advice, creating a patch for the future GNAT GPL 2008 (let's see if it >is really easy to implement or not... :-) and distributing it here. > >Cheers, > >-- >Santiago Urue=F1a-Pascual >Technical University of Madrid (UPM)