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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f891f,9d58048b8113c00f X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e71cf22768a124d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10cc59,9d58048b8113c00f X-Google-Attributes: gid10cc59,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,9d58048b8113c00f X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree) Date: 1996/06/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 159715209 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4p3nqb$k4a@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc Date: 1996-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4pj7e0$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