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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-31 07:52:16 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.online.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet!psiuk-p2!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to make Ada a dominant language Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:17:29 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9k6elq$o33$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <9k3l9r$10i2$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B656345.64AB603A@sneakemail.com> <9k3oa1$2qg8$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B657715.7EC592D9@sneakemail.com> <3B662A07.966963CF@sneakemail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 996589050 24675 136.170.200.133 (31 Jul 2001 14:17:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jul 2001 14:17:30 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10867 Date: 2001-07-31T14:17:30+00:00 List-Id: Why are you so convinced that Ada got it wrong? I've been using Ada since way-back-when (I used to have standards for "Ada-80" on my shelf - preliminary drafts before the final standard of Ada-83 came out.) and thought it was an imense improvement in syntax over numerous other languages I had used. It avoided lots of common syntax traps that existed in languages like Cobol and Pascal and C - syntax traps you are proposing to put back in. The syntax was aimed at making things as easy to read as possible so that maintenance effort would be eased, and I think it succeeded at that very well. The syntax may not be what you are used to, but I really don't see that it is in any way "broken". It achieves its goals of high readability and avoids a number of pitfalls that would make it difficult for a parser to identify where errors occur because of simple typos. I'd bet that by the time you've written a couple of megabytes of Ada code, you'll be used to the syntax and it will roll off your tongue very naturally. You won't find it nearly so "broken" then as you may now - in fact you may even gain some insight into *why* certain choices were made for syntax and how nicely "orthogonal" the syntax is. Or you can try writing a preprocessor to change the syntax and maybe you'll come up with a language hugely more popular than Ada. I invite you to do so. If Ada'Succ becomes hugely popular with a different syntax, I'll gladly learn the different syntax and move on - just as I've done with dozens of other languages. Syntax may be important to appearance, popularity, readability, error avoidance, etc., but I don't think this is the big driver as far as popularity goes. Semantics are much more an issue. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Russ Paielli" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:3B662A07.966963CF@sneakemail.com... > > Everyone on this thread seems to think that syntax is completely > superficial. Well, it is in a sense, but it is also the interfact that > the language presents to the programmer every working minute, and that > is important. all I am asking is, why not just get it right? >