Re: PL/SQL -> Ada

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <38E2486D.ADB30CCB@quadruscorp.com>,
  "Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote:

> Well as often happens in Ada, a compiler can *correctly*
handle
> something by simply refusing to do it. Representation clauses
are a good
> example. (And, BTW, the usual area where I want to shoot the
language
> lawyers! :-) You try declaring a type and adding a rep clause
that is
> perfectly reasonable and the compiler rejects it for some
reason and you
> get frustrated.


My experience is that when people get frustrated in this
situation, it is VERY often because they have some fundamental
misconceptions, or are thinking using fuzzy logic :-)

It would be instructive if you would give specific examples.
Remember we are asking for examples where the dreaded language
lawyers are the ones giving you trouble, not just cases where
compilers fail to accept reasonable optional representation
clauses.

Note that there is a well defined set of rep clauses that is
REQUIRED to be accepted by the compiler, so presumably you
must be talking about examples outside this set (otherwise
you are simply pointing out bugs or shortcomings [no Annex
C support] which is another matter entirely.


The language lawyer says "Well, because this was here
> and that rule collided with the other and the moon was in this
phase and
> Jupiter aligned with Mars, the compiler was perfectly within
its rights
> to reject your rep clause." My response ends up "That's all
very
> interesting and I'm so happy for you that your compiler
doesn't have a
> bug in it, but how the heck do I get what I *want* out of the
damned
> thing??!?!?!"

Usually this is a case in which you simply do not understand
some important and critical semantic principle.

> To the practitioner, the language lawyer can be seen as a
> stumbling block in the path to getting the job done.

This is almost never an accurate reading of the situation.
It is true that users often think that something should work
without understanding things (like the person in some other
thread who thought that "with Standard.Ada.Text_IO;" should
be allowed with the "obvious" meaning. Unfortunately, what
was obvious to him was in fact plain wrong.

> I *do* understand the value
> of language law and I'm *glad* we've got sharp lawyers around
to make
> sure compilers behave according to the rules, but just as real
world
> lawyers can hose-up a perfectly good business deal, language
lawyers can
> do the same in the programming world.

Again, my experience is that when people feel this way it is
simply that they do not know the language well enough and are
missing some critical semantic points. Remember that the people
who designed Ada 95 are highly pragmatic people who understand
pragmatic issues very well, there was not a single theoretician
in the design team from my point of view.

> If you want specific examples, I'll be happy to discuss them
off-line. I
> deal with lots of different vendors from time to time and
don't want to
> get into besmirching specific products in public when the
products are
> in most other respects quite good.

Well it would be interesting to see some examples, especially
if you think my characterization above is unfair :-)



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.