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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a50a3c40267219cc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-15 04:11:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!diablo.dera.gov.uk!dera!not-for-mail From: "Stephen Cole" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why not combine Ada and C++? Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:15:38 +0100 Organization: Defence Evaluation & Research Agency Message-ID: <9qeg5r$266$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> References: <3105e154.0110150021.32ff5426@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.80.10.150 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14514 Date: 2001-10-15T12:15:38+01:00 List-Id: I think the idea is a good one. I don't like the caselessness of Ada either. It makes feel MSDOSish rather than a modern language. Why is caselessness still concidered important in this day and age when memory is so cheap. Ada seems to suffer from rules that seem to be relevant to implementation difficulties rather than giving the programmer a consistent/simple view of the program implementation space. But I am just a beginner in Ada so maybe I am wrong. But I don't think so. But there is a lot about Ada to like. I think the combination of Ada & C++ would be a 80/20 split in favour of Ada. One of the things I DO NOT want to see lost is its extremely strong type checking. Thats beautifully implemented. And popularity is important. If people are being switched off Ada for some reason, you have to wonder why! Maybe an Ada2001 is needed which panders to user whims rather than completeness. You get the high integrity bunch imposing limitations on the language as it is (like Sparc Ada), so the need for high integrity from the start could be softened. Just make a language which can be tighted of loosened depending upon user needs. Using parsers or maybe even built in pragmas. Thinking about C++ as a Users language and Ada Problem solving complete language could maybe provide a road forward for a language which *seems* to be loosing the popularity stakes. The sooner the problem is recognised (especially by the Ada hard heads) the sooner a future can be built that tries to stem the sloppiness that languages like C++ unintentionally may be allowing. If C++ were combined with Ada and/or #pragma allowed, just think of the interest the then C++ hard heads would have in leaning about tightening up their coding skills to produce high integrity software! At the moment Ada (to them) is just out there and of no relevance. At the moment the jump from C++ to Ada is too much to bother with for a lot of people. I was one of them until I was given time and told to learn it. If this gap was bridged more, it would be healthy for everyone I think. "Mike Meng" wrote in message news:3105e154.0110150021.32ff5426@posting.google.com... > Hi, I am a proficient C++ programmer, who also admire Ada's > reliability and power. After tasted a little Ada, I must admit that I > like it. I alway say to my friends, though C++ is a great language, > it's population is just because it's *C*++. If the most pop PL in > mid-1990s was Ada, the whole life would be much easier. > > But the history is history. Though I know Ada's syntax is much clearer > and readable than C++'s, nowadays, most of programmers are familiar > with C-family languages' syntax. Some of my friends don't like Ada > just because it's not case-sensitive! > > I'm an SCJP (Sun's Certificated Java Programmer), I clearly remember > what the teacher said, "Java is created with C++'s syntax and > Smalltalk's semantic". I always thought, if there is a language with > C++ syntax and Ada95's semantic, it must be very pop! > > I don't know much about Ada, so I can't figure out how is the > feasibility. Please comment it.