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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.166.73 with SMTP id ze9mr7755198obb.4.1412792571563; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:22:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.66.179 with SMTP id g19mr181286igt.17.1412792571285; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!h18no3344887igc.0!news-out.google.com!bc9ni17237igb.0!nntp.google.com!h18no3344882igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:22:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7a86a346-78f6-4da3-9030-f594a4ee7c18@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada 2005 Language Designer From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:22:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22249 Date: 2014-10-08T11:22:50-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 8:15:26 AM UTC-7, J-P. Rosen wrote: > > As per a previous thread, not having Object.Method really hurt Ada at > > a time when it needed it, now it is an uphill battle to get > > application developers to look at it seriously again. IMO. >=20 > I don't think so. Syntactic sugar plays little role; what makes Ada > acceptance difficult is that the profession is not mature enough to > understand that it is time to stop programming computers, and start > designing software applications. Actually, I think it played some role. I do know of one person who I think= was very interested, possibly enthusiastic, about Ada before Ada 95 was re= leased; but after it did, his feeling was, in his words, "Ada blew it". An= d I think it was due to the unusual syntax choices that were made: not havi= ng operations defined as part of some sort of class type, not having Object= .Method notation, perhaps the use of "tagged record". That's just one pers= on, but I'm sure there were others. I'm not saying this is the biggest fac= tor hindering Ada acceptance, but I'm certain it was a factor and I tend to= think it was a factor of some significance. -- Adam