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 10.182.121.232 with SMTP id ln8mr1125655obb.11.1402993126997; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:18:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.95.176 with SMTP id i45mr28184qge.10.1402993126973; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:18:46 -0700 (PDT) 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!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!news.glorb.com!r2no927784igi.0!news-out.google.com!q9ni6501qaj.0!nntp.google.com!w8no3958880qac.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:18:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1lk5etrvv7sy2$.p7h015lw2pmn$.dlg@40tude.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.182.34.254; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.182.34.254 References: <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <9qednXOIGNDuLQXORVn_vwA@giganews.com> <1872904482424209024.314619laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <810507a4-427e-42bb-a468-e5939a4470db@googlegroups.com> <9qbfr6yf0gnb.182y1qs9eigz4$.dlg@40tude.net> <1lk5etrvv7sy2$.p7h015lw2pmn$.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <86ab6158-7273-4696-b4be-ceb950c7f218@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:18:46 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20389 Date: 2014-06-17T01:18:46-07:00 List-Id: > > What if we treat the standard library as part of the language? >=20 > It would be self-contradictory. No. There are languages where even things like package importing, adding fi= elds to record types or even virtual dispatch are library-level operations.= They might or might not have a support at the level of what we consider "s= yntax", but even there the border is blurred. In languages that are somewha= t inspired by Lisp even the for loop might or might not be a library featur= e. > A library is defined in the language terms, You are trying to give your own definitions as if they are universal truth.= My definition is: language and its standard library are indivisible. What = now? I agree that it is a cool ideal to have a language that allows you to imple= ment its own run-time or at least as much of it as possible. But I don't ac= cept it as an objective definition. > >> If Ada were a better language, array could be a > >> library container. >=20 > > Assembly language fits that ideal, right? >=20 > No it does not. Assembly languages do not have containers. You have asked for a library. Definitely assembly languages can have librar= ies with containers. > Operator new was a mistake, excusable for early 80's. It is especially > obvious since deallocator is not an operator. Ada is exceptional in the sense that deallocator is not an operator. Other = languages like have that right (that is, allocation/deallocations are both = operators or neither one is). > BTW, assignment operator was > a mistake too. If there is no assignment operator, you need something else to build it upo= n. A dictionary, perhaps? But now, you wanted that in the library, too. It seems to be that the choice between syntax and library support is a matt= er of taste - but this makes it even further from being an objective defini= tion. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com