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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c424d8135e68278 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-12 06:40:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.8.194.95!news.netcologne.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!not-for-mail From: Peter Hermann Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada2005 Date: 12 Dec 2001 14:40:27 GMT Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Message-ID: <9v7q8r$1f5$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> References: <9v4jsj$bd1$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <9v7f26$qn2$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <3C1754BA.C4560423@informatik.uni-jena.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: iris16.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980117 (UNIX) (IRIX/6.5 (IP22)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17836 Date: 2001-12-12T14:40:27+00:00 List-Id: Carsten Freining wrote: > I think Ada95 needs a very urgent revision. I disagree (Verzeihung ;-) ) > 1. There are many things that have been overtaken by Ada83 and can be > removed now. Since everybody knew it would be removed no new software should > rely on it. well, some things are clearly marked "obsolete" and should be, after the next revision, commented by the compiler by means of a warning-type message, of course. It is the very strength of the Ada philosophy of a very long-term reliable standard, with no supersets, no subsets, aiming at maximum portability. Removing of features should be done only after a decade_long warning period. > Another point is the use of unicode characters in identifiers. This is not urgent. BTW, the time is not ripe for this, anyway. Consider the simple German umlaut, how many technical problems are generated nowadays with all different hardware/software we are still working. I stick myself to simple ascii in order to save working time, for example. > 2. There are many problems that have been created by Ada95. I consider Ada95 a wonderful small delta after Ada83. > Best example is the object oriented part, because it is not possible to have > constants as components. Compiler maintainers may insert the already existing keywork "constant" in coffee break time. > There are no real bindings between methods (or > procedures) and the belonging class. It is just a package. The opposite is true: the Ada concept is more charming IMHO in that the methods defined in the context belong to the tagged type. The defining scope is crucial. > And there is still the fixed length String. I don't think it is neccessary. The fixed length string is a core requirement for bread_and_butter_softworkers. Tight control over basic static data types is e.g. a necessary need for efficiency sometimes required. > It would be better to have only the bounded-length string. For downwards "only"? Maybe the comfort to handle them could be enhanced. > compatibility they both can still be available, but I think it is an ancient > thing to still have a fixed length String were only String with exactly the > same length can be assigned. Although the tools are in Ada95 standard packages, they could be better shifted to standard Ada syntax, you are right. In this matter, even Fortran is more comfortable, however I would dislike a lack of Ada's strong supervision of truncation. > These are only the examples coming to my mind reading, that Ada95 needs no > revision. There are many more (it is just hard to put them together in a > couple of minutes). We went through the rational and compared the stuff > there with the Standard and we found many things, where ada 95 has been > behind all other techniques right from the start. > Since I work at the university, teaching students about programming > languages, I have to state, that it is not possible, to use the standard in > education. You can only use a subset of Ada, because most things are not The typical Pascal/Fortran subset is indeed enough for newcomers. > understandable for students, especially in the beginning of their studies. I the advanced students are more cute than you think. > think only to make the standard more clear it is neccessary to go through > the standard and make important changes to clearify it. It is up to you to help clarifying for Ada2005. Gruesse (ohne Umlaut ;-) ) Peter -- --Peter Hermann(49)0711-685-3611 fax3758 ica2ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de --Pfaffenwaldring 27 Raum 114, D-70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen --http://www.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de/homes/ph/ --Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)