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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e7db243dfa070d7
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Do people who use Ada also use ocaml or F#?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <b17dc7a8-7f8e-46b7-942c-b08ba83ce8fa@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <gt9eaeq2y4pc$.11t5wghh3e8jh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <87k4kz3mda.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <amlrr4wam4x6.10s9ynz9e8br$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.vlekzab8ule2fv@garhos>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:37:31 +0200
Message-ID: <5jjgrklivesk$.z0is5qe7mgbt.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 2010 21:37:29 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: d2bb2dd8.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Zbj>Z4YJCjK[kmHKHnaEnMMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK7\lEHSWYo9E[6LHn;2LCVN[<mhadbfdUKcBU1i?B@ohF565AF@a182K
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15956
Date: 2010-10-30T21:37:29+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:12:36 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:59:47 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> To me it is obvious that a type system serves reuse. The property of being
>> static is aimed at correctness checks/proofs. In this context generics look
>> quite disappointing.

> I do not see how this could be less safe than a design process itself.  
> Generics are like building something with a pattern, and this pattern is  
> checked for consistency in Ada.

So are machine instructions when executed by the processor. The argument is
invalid: whatever does Ada with the instances of a generic body is
irrelevant to checking the generic body.

> This is not more not less safe than any  
> other composition process.

This requires a proof, which would be hard to provide because generics are
non-testable.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de