Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

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

On 7/2/10 1:50 AM, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> I don't see any particular need for such a profile, at least in the case of
> overloading.
>
> Janus/Ada produces error messages ignoring overloading when that is
> possible. For instance, if there is only one Put_String routine, the call:
>      Put_String (10);
> would get the message: "Unable to resolve - parameter has wrong type" with
> the arrow pointing at "10". The error handler also tries to make sensible
> messages for predefined math operators.
>
> Thus, the reason you get unintelligible messages is that you are using
> heavily overloaded routines in student programs (like Text_IO). Don't do
> that and the problem pretty much goes away (at least until the students are
> taught about overloading, but hopefully by then they'll be better equiped to
> handle the complexity).

Frankly, and with all due respect, your argument is exactly that
of a C programmer when he denies advantages of using Ada:

"Don't do that and the problem pretty much goes away..."

That's true, but it doesn't happen.

The int problem won't go away and continues to affect IT at large.
Does this make anyone switch?  Continuing the analogy,
the advantages of Ada's fundamental type system are undeniably
demonstrated in a comparative setting such as McCormick's.
Yet once people start to like int, or Ada I guess, they won't let go.
There may be evidence that char and int etc. don't work well.
But rather than give up the first plan (C) and switch to
a different plan (Ada) they proudly defend their property (C)...

Profiles don't require switching languages. But if
(and only if) one feature of Ada turns out to be an obstacle
to early learning, is it not better to keep the language as is
and bridle it with a profile that removes the obstacle as needed?

(It need not be overloading, if overloading does not cause the
teaching problems or learning problems that Peter Chapin reported.)