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: 103376,799e6e37c90ca633 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Future Ada language revisions? Date: 1998/09/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 395874558 References: <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998Sep27.181539.1@eisner> <6uo71n$cr1$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 907045332 216 bpr 206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > I'm hoping, probably prematurely, that a large number of programmers who > > hadn't used Ada before Ada 95 are using it now, and that in time perhaps > > the majority opinion will change. I'm one of those new Ada users, and as > > I've tried to "sell" Ada to colleagues I've been a bit embarassed at > > explaining this blemish. > > > Remember that I completely agree on the technical issue here. OK. > But this is by NO means a blemish, and if it causes you embarassment, it just > means you lack perspective. We all lack perspective, and I probably lack more than most. However, when I find myself using access parameters (and then aliased variables :-) to work around this restriction, I'm forced to ask myself if the cure isn't worse than the disease (side effecting functions). > There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. > > Which side you come down on depends on your evaluation of the relative > merit of these good arguments. It is clear that the general viewpoint > is that the disadvantages of allowing this kind of specification outweigh > the advantages. > > I find this perfectly reasonable, and not the least bit embarassing to > describe and defend! You're better at playing devil's advocate than I am then. There are quite a few design decisions in Ada that I am not completely happy with, for example the lack of downward funargs, but I understand the reasons for that choice and even if I would have decided differently I think I could argue against my preference honestly. Given that Ada is not referentially transparent, and that I can write side effecting functions now, and that there is now a great temptation to (mis)use aliasing, etc., I don't see that the arguments against relaxing this restriction are very good at all. So, I stand by what I wrote, with the qualification to those who may misunderstand my position, that I think Ada is exceptionally well designed, and will keep using it even though I don't have to, and even if there are little blemishes (*) that vex me now and then. -- Brian (*) I suspect that you don't like my word choice here. Perhaps "poor design decision, IMO" would be less offensive ;-)