Re: GNAT packages in Linux distributions

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 03.06.10 15:49, (see below) wrote:
> On 03/06/2010 04:16, in article op.vdpfdcgoxmjfy8@garhos, "Yannick Duch�ne
> (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Le Thu, 27 May 2010 17:21:57 +0200, (see below)
>> <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> a �crit:
>>> My experience is that CS/SE students always focus on "coding" at the
>>> expense
>>> of problem analysis, program design, project planning, verification,
>>> validation, documentation, and anything else they find less congenial.
>> I always though this was not so much with these students. So why do they
>> choose it if they are not aware of what it requires ?
> 
> They are aware. That makes no difference.

Coding invariables makes me think of a tricky(?) question:
What should a language look like that naturally makes the programmer
think before coding, and take his/her time?  What would its
features and offerings have to be?

One inescapable ingredient of any popular PL seems to be magic at the
level of syntax, if this is how programmers most visibly see themselves
express themselves.  Can't force them to wear boring ties. Eiffel's
syntax appears to be expanding ...
If overloadings of polymorphically clever ASCII punctuation digraphs
offer the neccessary magic, I guess this will explain OCaml and its MS
adaptation F#, soon to be pushed into the market. Bracket free...

Maybe some Cobol style modules headers listing major internal
and external parts to be manipulated might help?