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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:39:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 23:39:57 -0400 From: Peter Chapin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-NmvbnGAkTAB4HHP2fKQ5Vmvz0zEz8WtB1ZxRPy8g3qCdw131bYOMBbt0pOqERCdmm7F17TcRmUnsRkR!0Jeirf0ldiV0PdGMUlKCOp4GsoXs4XE6OWboIwvgAAmqqsPfLRXpQpD0Sq9q1lk= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 2557 X-Received-Bytes: 2669 X-Received-Body-CRC: 4124294370 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19157 Date: 2014-04-04T23:39:57-04:00 List-Id: On 2014-04-04 14:31, Dan'l Miller wrote: > a potential Ada 202X's overt over-arching guiding principle: I don't think Ada should try to become a functional language. I doubt if it could do so in a reasonable way while still being compatible to itself and maintaining its coherence. If you need to program functionally, don't use Ada. I can live with that. Ada was originally designed for embedded systems development so it seems natural for Ada 202X to continue with that focus. In that line enhanced support for parallelism, as Randy mentioned, seems like a logical step. Abstract concepts from languages with a theoretical focus (such as higher kinded types, metaprogramming, declarative programming, etc) just don't seem to be what Ada is about. I realize this might scandalize some people here, but I honestly see Ada as a similar kind of language as C. It is a systems oriented language intended for "down and dirty" control of hardware, etc. It is, of course, much safer than C and much better at programming in the large. (It probably makes more sense to compare Ada to C++). However, in the grand scheme of programming languages I see Ada, C, and C++ all hanging out together and well away from the Pythons, the Lisps, the MLs, and the Prologs. Peter