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: 103376,52fd60a337c05842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 11:10:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!bpr.best.vwh.net!bpr Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: ada paper critic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3D0A399C.EF6F1BD9@acm.org> <3D0B4CCC.7010104@telepath.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:10:20 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.220.65.223 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 1024423585 192.220.65.223 (Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:06:25 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:06:25 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26275 Date: 2002-06-18T18:10:20+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Marin David Condic wrote: > As an Ada True Believer in good standing and one who has used the language > for a long number of years, I can honestly say that I cannot recall ever > having decided to change an array reference into a function call, or the > other way around. Maybe its just me. Maybe it was the application domains I > have worked in. But generally, by the time I got to coding something up, the > architecture of the program was pretty well a fixed decision and arrays > stayed arrays and functions stayed functions. So maybe I just can't see why > its such a big deal that arrays and functions have the same syntax - or for > that matter why they should have separate syntax. My point isn't that I hate Ada because it does this (I don't) but that the argument that all people who wish Ada had distinct syntax for these distinct notions aren't necessarily disgruntled C fans forced to use Ada. In fact, the reason Ada does it this way isn't because it was argued and the design team came to a consensus that the way it is done is best. I also mentioned that it is too late to fix this wart. Even if you made me the Grand Mullah of the Ada standard, I wouldn't change this now. > Maybe in theory its better for Ada to have "A [X]" and "F (X)" syntax. Maybe > in theory its worse. But it sure seems like if this is in any way a wart - > its a *really* small one. I find it harder to read Ada code because of this decision. Not a lot harder, but harder. -- Brian