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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,84bf0ec36cf20893 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-14 07:18:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea? Date: 14 May 2002 07:18:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0205140618.2d789fc9@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1021385918 13155 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2002 14:18:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2002 14:18:38 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24018 Date: 2002-05-14T14:18:38+00:00 List-Id: James Ross wrote in message news:... > We have JavaScript and VBScript ... > > And then there is Perl, Python, ... etc. > > If someone where to create a type-less and interpreted variant of the > Ada language, that for all practical purposes was Ada syntax / rules > without the strong typing -- would that be a useful or worthwhile > thing to do? Or would it be just obfuscating what Ada is all about? > > JR One would hazard a guess from the above that someone thinks that JavaScript has something to do with Java. Why would anyone possibly think that :-) :-) At ACT we use (full) Ada as a scripting language all the time. The advantages of strong typing etc apply perfectly well in this environment as well. Our only problems with scripts are the old ones written in junk untyped languages like shell scripts :-)