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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,3867e2f73fa21ec X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.36.66 with SMTP id s2mr16921333qad.6.1367581505787; Fri, 03 May 2013 04:45:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.82.100 with SMTP id h4mr894984qey.17.1367581505714; Fri, 03 May 2013 04:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Path: y6ni0qax.0!nntp.google.com!m7no664044qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 04:45:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=91.7.84.212; posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.7.84.212 References: <7704abab-86f2-4edc-ad4b-b3d4e70004fb@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7446fa12-42ce-4716-b0ef-e7eab9005fdb@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada 2012: In-out parameters for functions From: AdaMagica Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 11:45:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2013-05-03T04:45:05-07:00 List-Id: Again some misinformation from anon. On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:48:29 PM UTC+2, anon wrote: > For Ada 83 functions the DOD required a language that contains a > true function and not the C like function. But since 1998 when the > DOD drop the Ada requirement, the Ada maintainers were allowed to > alter the definition of a function. http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/steelman/steelman.htm#7 There is no such requirement in Steelman. Ada functions have always had parameters of access types, which allow a kind of out-parameters. They also have been able to modify global parameters, a hidden form of out-parameters. Thus they always have been able to have side effects, albeit were not allowed to say so. > Since then one or more of Ada maintainers have decided to add number > of "C" like syntax and/or coding to Ada. An example is the "conditional > statements" another is the the "C" function/procedure call with both > having in out parameters. A number of old "C" compilers ( 1980..1990s > from Microsoft and IBM ) allowed the "in out" parameters for C > functions. > > Another change is the "Copy by Reference" has been replaced by > "Copy by Type". This change alone defeats the purpose of the > "limited private" used in Generics compilation units aka external > re-usable libraries which forces existing libraries to be > re-written. So, many companies that used Generic libraries are > now leaving Ada for a language that does not alter a major language > feature after 25 plus years of the language existence. I guess return-by-reference vs. build-in-place is meant here. That was a change from Ada 95 to Ada 2005. ARG felt that return-by-reference was a big mistake, so they corrected it. Ada83 functions returning tasks were a big problem. > Also, Robert Dewar the CEO at Adacore and the main maintainer at the > movement for Ada stated that they would modify Ada to help increase > the number of Ada programmers. Robert Dewar as CEO has to look at > Adacore profits and not just designs a better language which means > that Ada may suffer due to Adacore's profitability. But what most > programmers want is the best language with the best features that > are not features that can lead to erroneous error in coding or > execution. No comment on AdaCore bashing... > And both functions with "in out" parameters and "conditional > statements" can cause erroneous coding which leads to erroneous > executions. And for that reason these features should have never > been added to Ada. > > This means Ada has stated going down the path of previous languages > like PL/1, C, Lisp and even Java. So, programmers are looking for > the next language that maintainers will not just adopt the bad designs > from previous language maintainers. You may like or dislike these features, but they do not introduce side effects into functions, they only make the previous hidden ways obvious.