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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:04:44 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <71gmwppfsr52.1n74jhbe1j1ga.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com>
 <206rutb9pqak$.11a3dufqvmrm4.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3a071d1c-b6d1-4596-83f9-355bc9c29deb@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: KX5nm0jf7du4gHjHR6mb/g.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:18985
Date: 2014-03-26T18:04:44+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Anh Vo wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:17:39 AM UTC-7, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Stoik wrote:
>> 
>>> I suspect many of the proposals could be tested in GNAT before being 
>>> introduced (or rejected) in the new version. One could add a switch to 
>>> GNAT indicating that we want to use some of the experimental features.
>> 
>> Yes, an experimental sandbox is a good idea. However, better would be a 
>> compiler from a generalized and simpler language with Ada type system 
>> implemented as a library. Most of Ada complexity is due to irregularities 
>> and weaknesses of its type system.
> 
> You sound like most Ada type systems are week. It is obviously not true.

I didn't mean weakly typing, though Ada's type system has some problems
with that as well. Main weakness of Ada type system is lack of abstraction
mechanisms which leads to multiplying special cases increasing language
complexity incredibly.

> After all, one of strength of Ada is its types/subtypes. Indeed, I would
> not choose Ada 25 years ago if it is not the case.

Now is 2014 and there is still no ad-hoc subtypes and supertypes. Subtypes
are still tightly coupled to the type representation. There is still no
procedural [sub/super]types. Initialization/finalization is still a mess.
Renaming to a subtype is still broken and so on and so forth.

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