From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5441:: with SMTP id d1mr19726036qtq.384.1608604785768; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:39:45 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:12f2:: with SMTP id f18mr17187100qkl.483.1608604785579; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:39:45 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:39:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.235.180; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.235.180 References: <5fdbde31$0$6455$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <86im8ylnj4.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <5fdde913$0$3238$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <7a72951a-5a0c-42d6-ad30-357a43883b6fn@googlegroups.com> <7ecb50e0-2da8-475f-8a6b-ffb51aa195fcn@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7d4d4219-bc7d-4146-88b2-bd59865e8ffan@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada syntax questions From: Andreas ZEURCHER Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 02:39:45 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:60925 List-Id: On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 6:58:54 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Andreas ZEURCHER" wrote in message=20 > news:bfaef8db-8f57-4a06...@googlegroups.com... > .=20 > >Ada's inexpressiveness of imprecision of vagueness of misrepresenting=20 > >design intent in this regard (of inability to compile-time enforce purit= y > >of subroutines) ...=20 >=20 > Which Ada? Ada 202x has Global aspects specifically for this purpose, and= =20 > they are compile-time enforced. This is very good news. I will need to investigate those AIs further. I t= ake it from your wording that Global aspects are a general mechanism that a= codebase could use to implement e.g. the purity check that FP seeks. If a= general mechanism, it will be interesting to foresee what other categories= of axioms can be enforced/assured beyond purity. Btw, I botched my exampl= e of extant programming languages in a prior comment that has a purity chec= k on a call tree. D has it currently, but it is has been proposed but not = yet incorporated into Scala. > Methinks are you simply looking to troll Ada rather than any serious inte= nt.=20 No, absolutely not, at least not in the pejorative that your wording implie= s. As a system-engineer =E2=80=A2critic=E2=80=A2 of finding the flaws in t= he system at large, I am always performing gap analysis on current Ada vers= us desired state of a universal programming language, using a technique not= unlike FMEA. At some level you are coincidentally correct: I am negative= ly disappointed with Ada as much as C++ as much as Scala as much as D as mu= ch as Kotlin as much as Swift as much as C# as much as OCaml, but in differ= ent ways and to different degrees for each language. For example, I admire= so many portions of Ada, especially its declarative rich typing expressivi= ty and its 35-year lead in accomplishing much of what C++20 will finally ge= t with their oft-pursued concept feature. Conversely, it is sad that few p= eople realize that Ada has had much of the new whizbang C++20 concept featu= re for 35 years. It is as if Ada is a mostly superior product whose salesm= en don't consummate as many sales contracts as they ought. It is useful to= study in depth precisely why the superior product partially fails to achie= ve its potential glory. One of the most interesting successes of Ada is th= at its user community seems to have fairly consistently utilized the vast m= ajority of the features of the language on a regular basis. Despite C++'s = perceived popularity by comparison, each C++ codebase utilizes 10% of C++, = but worse it is a different 10% of C++ utilized for each different codebase= with vast rivalry between codebases regarding which portions of C++ are Go= d's gift to humankind and which portions of C++ are uncouth. Hence, C++'s = perceived popularity is more of a mirage than it first appears because ther= e is no one C++ that is popular, but rather a hundred subsets of C++, 75 of= which are intensely unpopular to each of the others and 24 of which are ey= e-rollingly barely tolerable to each of the others. As no small achievemen= t, Ada achieves Scott McNealy's =E2=80=9Call the wood behind one arrow=E2= =80=9D vastly more than, say, C++'s or D's everything-and-the-kitchen-sink = pandering to me-too-isms. Scala/JVM, Scala/Native, Scala/OO, and Scala/FP = are constantly in a multi-way tug-of-war of sorts (actually 2 orthogonal tu= gs-of-wars at 2 different ontological levels) that again isn't =E2=80=9Call= the wood behind one arrow=E2=80=9D that Ada better achieves than Scala (so= far). > There's no implementation of Global yet, sadly. Hopefully coming soon.=20 It will be interesting to see the furthest push-the-limits extent of applic= ability of Global aspects.