Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it?

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 1:54:28 PM UTC-6, jan.de... wrote:
> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 8:44:37 PM UTC+2, Shark8 wrote:
> > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 1:14:56 AM UTC-6, jan.de... wrote:
> > > 
> 
> And by the way let me say it again: this is _not_ a language shoot out. I have not got time for such crap. But I would certainly like some light over the issues I raised (And beyond "we need it" and "we always done it this way", that for me merely points to a vested interest).

Oh, no, I didn't mean to come off like it _was_ a language shoot-out. Just pointing out that the 'baroqueness' (complexity) certainly can have a positive answer to your questions.

I am in agreement as to wanting understanding on the size of the RM though. (I suspect that it derives from equal parts structured format and "we always done it this way".)

> Shark, the features you bring up are not at all the issue. It is much deeper than that and I would love a good discussion about it, because to be honest I am totally puzzled by the 1500 pages.there is something deeply wrong with the thinking behind it. And I am the least of all to say that. Much greater brains have before me.

No, they aren't -- but they are answers to the question of complexity, which is tangential to the RM's size (it must define the features, and should specify interactions between features like, say, a function returning a task with an extended return, or an expression function returning an access to a task).

> I love the language, I like working in it, except when the compiler is throwing its toys. And dont misunderstand me, it is always for good reasons (according to the RM, and my logic brain tells me it is right) but the dichotomy stays: How is it possible to _not_ have all these issues and work fast with the _same_ precision and security and provability as what we are used to in Ada. It boggles the mind.

Yes; I think the RM could possibly be shorter... but I think we would lose much of its topical-structure* if we did that. -- It might have been acceptable to restructure in Ada 95, but the problem of doing it now is it would be backwards incomparable /w section numbers.

* -- The structure makes the TOC and Index very usable. The Ada LRM's index is one of the better ones, IMO.