Re: Ada advocacy

["G.B." <rm-dash-bau-haus@dash.futureapps.de>]

On 28.08.13 13:59, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> The corresponding patters for safer abstractions are sessions, transactions
> etc, all in the end intended to weaken the preconditions.

These concepts not being defined in Ada, it is all the more worrying
that efforts in the direction of integrating such higher level
concepts are either

- hooked into closed source and/or patent pending algorithms/language
   like e.g. into Google's experimental App Engine, or

- do not visibly produce any coordinated language design effort,
   assuming the software-dependent industry ever thinks about such

An example of lack of coordination is reflected by OpenMP; the good
things developed with more recent versions of OpenMP still require
doubled (or squared) efforts when programming: both, the sequential
languages like C or Fortran, and the OpenMP capabilities, need to be
used properly. Paraffin cannot be much better than OpenMP here, I
think, since it's a library and needs convention, not language, for
expressing algorithms for Paraffin.  When writing OpenMP annotations,
the mantra is likely "just do the right thing", again dismissing
language design in favor of proud, ego-full programmers who (think
they) do the right thing.

Do you think that current types can handle this at the language
level?