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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Successor Language
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:30:43 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <87fu1izfgs.fsf@nightsong.com>
References: <5e86db65-84b9-4b5b-9aea-427a658b5ae7@googlegroups.com>
	<878t7u1cfm.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<c22391d4-94b6-4ed3-96c0-1e9a84c4a99c@googlegroups.com>
	<b1141508-e692-46f6-b536-4a72081dfb45@googlegroups.com>
	<foqeocF7l4fU1@mid.individual.net> <pg949k$jmv$1@dont-email.me>
	<foqjvhF8kskU1@mid.individual.net>
	<776f3645-ed0c-4118-9b4d-21660e3bba4b@googlegroups.com>
	<pg9bd9$eo9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87602fbu2g.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<pgad3n$1sop$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87po0mziqt.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<pgbm5e$c1l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="d6cb8fb4b722703e60151f6acfa9b2a5";
	logging-data="26834"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CVRvu5/Qy2VIp8dpt0KzK"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DlfDkDZxz4svIZOSdrRTUaFMFyA=
	sha1:Dta9byFo2m3+GIsv3Y/q+1o8nTw=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53169
Date: 2018-06-19T13:30:43-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> Generics and macros are same thing regardless implementation.  

That makes no sense under the notion of generics in that paper whose url
I posted.  C++ does them with a macro-like scheme that can get messy but
Haskell does them in a much sounder way that works really well and
doesn't involve macros.

> You can have shared generic bodies as in Janus Ada, but that changes
> nothing on the nature of generics. It was a mistake for both Ada and
> C++ to have them in the first place.

I don't understand what the issue is.  I don't think it was a mistake
for C++ to have generics since the generic approach in C++ is IME much
better than the OO approach with inheritance.  But, I could agree that
C++'s use of templates to implement generics causes some problems.  I
use them but encounter the obvious annoyances in doing so.

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:
> I think Dmitry is saying that the Ada's _LRM_ standard doesn't require
> that better way.  GNAT's generics are closer to C++'s macro-esque
> approach, AIUI.  Conversely, Janus Ada's generics are at the other end
> of the spectrum, perhaps an exemplar model of "the better way" desired
> state.

Oh hmm, ok, that's interesting.  But I'm surprised that the LRM is loose
enough to allow two observably different implementations like that.