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,fa2cc518ef3b992c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: tagged types extensions - language design question Date: 2000/02/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 580427999 References: <389207CC.C16D80E8@averstar.com> <38971028.BB16D8A2@earthlink.net> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 949428405 217 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Matthew Heaney wrote: > In article <38971028.BB16D8A2@earthlink.net> , Charles Hixson > wrote: > > Along this line, what would be nice would be a language that merged the > > capabilities of the dynamic binding languages [e.g., Smalltalk] and the > > capabilities of the static binding languages [e.g., Ada]. So far the closest > > match that I've found is Python/C, though that has a lot of limitations. > > Isn't that what Objective-C tries to do? Objective-C allows you to nail down the binding of some object types, but doesn't come close to Ada in this regard. I would suggest Dylan if you want these capabilities in one language, though pragmatically speaking the implementations aren't mature enough for me yet. Charles did mention Python/C, and that's something I've been thinking about a lot lately; a scripting language written in Ada. Of course, one of the reasons for the success of C as a host for scripting languages is the enormous base of C code out there, which Ada doesn't have. Nonetheless, a scripting/extension language for Ada is an appealing idea. Dylan-over-Ada anyone? Yikes, that acronym is horrible :-) -- Brian