Re: Ada's ranking of popularity at IEEE Spectrum

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

On 10.07.14 20:30, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 7/10/2014 1:18 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
>>
>> One thing that can be done is concentrate on things that are unique
>> or done much better in Ada.

> int& i = *(int*)0xA100;
> ----------------------
>
> Anyone looking at the above 2 examples, can see that Ada is much
> more clear. Actually anyone who does not even know Ada can
> understand what the code does. Try that with the C++ version!

That's more of the anti-C++ fallacy. I think it won't help.

Arguably, it seems equally clear that anyone with a little background
in C++ finds the above declaration very clear, brief, and all on
one line, as should be.

The Ada example as given has incorrect syntax, because 16#A100#
alone is not of type System.Address.

Now Ada requires recent GNATs that support something which is
finally close to a single declaration, viz.

  use System.Storage_Elements;

  I : Integer with Address => To_Address (16#A100#);

(The old Ada syntax, "for I use at ..." is obsolescent,
but still present as well, and you start wondering why they
have changed this very fundamental expression three times.)

I think that typed literals would be even better...