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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0e1d3b3f7c994b8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Robert Dewar's great article about the Strengths of Ada over other langauges in multiprocessing! Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <7081b90d-d144-483f-8b67-dc71ad406ef2@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> References: <13t4b2kkjem20f3@corp.supernews.com> <33557da4-e4ba-4c75-9a55-4b7eb5fdad3b@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <44104211-afd5-4cf7-8467-90471d4afd1b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <2c2989ba-a109-40d6-b0a3-f91d94a2d291@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <9e12a297-599c-48e5-a5f9-5d6dee70e8dc@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <4bf50326-6ebf-455d-b54f-e1e75f265f50@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.141.45.224 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205486988 5615 127.0.0.1 (14 Mar 2008 09:29:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=128.141.45.224; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20369 Date: 2008-03-14T02:29:48-07:00 List-Id: On 14 Mar, 03:07, gp...@axonx.com wrote: > "Magic" not a good way to define an algorithmic language. You need it to explain interaction of the program with external world. This is outside of the language, yet the language has to define it - somehow. Being selectively silent is a standard (pun intended) practice. > Than why this keyword is still there, just drop it and issue warning > "volatile obsolete and no longer supported"? Volatile is needed to define side effects. But the truth is that "normal" programmers don't need to even learn this keyword. > Anyways, that sounds like total chaos. Yes. Note that the hardware phenomenons are also related to Ada. You *have* to use proper tools to control this chaos, otherwise you have exactly the same problems as in C++. The advantage of Ada is that it offers right tools out of the box - and as such they are readily explained in all educational material. Get *any* Ada book and you have protected objects explained. Thanks to this, even newbies can get it right by default. Or at least they have bigger chances. The problem with C++ is that all this is not explained in any introductory C++ book. You need separate and additional material and the sad truth is that most of the programmers never reach for anything additional. Then the misunderstanding propagates by other channels, including forums, blogs, etc. This is a technology culture problem, not a language limitation in the technical sense. You can write correct C++ MT programs and it is not more expensive than any alternative. It's just not what you can learn from "C++ Programming Language" type of books. -- Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com