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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,75a8a3664688f227 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-09 16:51:57 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sjc-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out In-Reply-To: <93fqau$6m2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Message-ID: References: <7Cx56.90736$A06.3322588@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com> <937jab$s23$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A57CD7F.2228BFD5@brighton.ac.uk> <938p3u$omv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93cagm$c1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e4e6$ucg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93encq$brm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93f6ar$m44$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93flab$2mh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93fqau$6m2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:47:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.184.139.136 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sjc-read.news.verio.net 979087657 206.184.139.136 (Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:47:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:47:37 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3844 Date: 2001-01-10T00:47:37+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote: > In article <93flab$2mh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > dmitry6243@my-deja.com wrote: > > > It is not complex vs. functional, it is correct vs. > > incorrect. > > I think there may be a language problem here :-) > > We are looking for technical arguments which always have to > balance complexity against functinlaity As much as I like multimethods, I have to agree that for a language like Ada, which is a relatively low level language which should be efficiently implementable without heroics, MM are probably too much to ask for. I'd like full closures too but that ain't happenin' without GC! [...snip...] > You might as well say that any language that does no provide > complete referential transparency is incorrect. Yes, in the > environment in which this discussion takes place, that is true, > but it does not mean we have to immediately go and implement > lazy evaluation in Ada 95 :-) Explain please. There are languages which are referentially transparent which are also strict/eager. Mercury and Opal come to mind (see, I can play the obscure language game as well as anyone :). -- Brian PS: Mercury seems to be a very worthy successor to Prolog.