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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:54:09 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <Y_2dnY2f7NnpPvjXnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <51617b48-400b-4296-9362-78aa712bb6b2@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
 <NqOdne7flfl9JvjXnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <d1a59fc3-53da-4fa6-8656-ec81fd0a28a5@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <frqdnVC40cGGSvjXnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <frqdnVC40cGGSvjXnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a65e4a2$0$30235$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jul 2009 17:54:10 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: d2d9fa4e.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Uf04=gef=@TU6b:FjPaGjQic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYK@IAnBOcfkX;9OJDO8_SKVNSZ1n^B98iZX<65b=B]lFQ
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:378 comp.lang.ada:7251
 comp.lang.modula3:78 comp.programming:11954
Date: 2009-07-21T17:54:10+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jon Harrop schrieb:
> Martin wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 3:09 pm, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>>> I do not doubt that. My concern about Ada is primarily that it prohibits
>>> many conventional and hugely-productive mainstream abstractions like
>>> first-class lexical closures. Those are particularly beneficial in the
>>> context of scientific computing.
>> But I'm afraid it does...20 years ago it didn't.
> 
> Not according to John Barnes' "Rationale for Ada 2005":
> 
>   http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rat/html/Rat-3-4.html

Chris Okasaki has an entertaining assessment of functional
programming in Ada 2005:
http://okasaki.blogspot.com/2008/07/functional-programming-inada.html

(What one can't do (really) is pass an environment up the call
chain...)

But why not show or point to some striking example of what
is possible to achieve, result-wise, in number-crunching or
scientific computing with full "closures" that is demonstrably
difficult or cumbersome to do using generics, downward "closures"
and objects only.