Re: Top 10 Ada myths

[eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)]

In article <3kr29h$grh@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

 >    My perspective is quite different from Robert Eachus's...but in
 > both cases we are talking about quite tiny holes.

     I don't think we disagree.  The holes in the language--as
understood by the ARG--may not be that different.  But there are a
number of cases in Ada 83 where Jean Ichbiah decided that putting all
the special cases and restrictions in the Reference Manual would
seriously damage its readability.  A significant number of these cases
ended up spelled out in AIs.  Others just entered the folklore--the
Goodenough trick for overloading equality, the fact that it is
possible to inherit entries--but only if they are renamed as
procedures, etc.

     In Ada 95, the approach is different.  Tucker did a very good job
of putting all the rules in the RM, and much of the elaboration needed
to understand the rules in the annotated version.  As a result, the RM
is somewhat less readable than in 1983, but those who do read it come
away with many fewer misconceptions.  Since the rationale is not only
very readable, maintained and printed in parallel, I think that the
net effect of the 95 approach is a major improvement.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...