Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)

[jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4pj7e0$fat@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin) writes:

> 
> 	>  Granted, if we abide by the rules of static binding, it is necessary to
> 	>  recompile the entire dependent set of compilation units when we change
> 	>  the ranges, but this is more of a mechanical excercise and has no
> 	>  impact on the underlying logic of our implementation. Software
> 	>  practitioners unfamiliar with Ada often make the mistake of believing
> 	>  that the restrictive nature of their favorite language carries over to
> 	>  Ada.  That is why it is so much fun to see those practitioners become
> 	>  excited when they learn just how powerful this language really is.
> 	>  Richard Riehle
> 
> ---One of the problems of using rigid facilities -- amply
> illustrates my point.  Arrays don't often have fixed sizes.
> The size depends on the problem.  One day, it might be 10,
> next day, 300, day after, 90.

What has this to do with anything?  Dynamically sized arrays are
trivial, flexible, easy and _safe_ to use in Ada and are in fact used
all the time.  The point being made is simply that if you decide on
the _definition_ of a type as a subrange, then only the clueless would
think it "good" to _not_ conform to the definition!  Get a clue.


>    Are you seriusly suggesting that EACH time the program
> is run that it be edited and recompiled?  And what
> happens -- as is often the case -- the size of the array
> changes DURING the run?

No he isn't.  I hope you aren't serious about this ridiculous comment.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com