Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)

[Jared <nowhere@nowhere.nowhere>]

jayessay <nospam@foo.com> wrote in 
> Lisp macros are _not_ a 
<snip>
> Lisp macros are full
<snip>
> Things like C/C++ preprocessor/"macro" simplistic text
> substitutions are not
<snip>
> You can literally create 
<snip>
> You can also 
<snip>
> None of this is at all doable _in_ things like
<snip>
> You would have to write a
<snip>

And that is why $YOUR_LANGUAGE should allow arbitrary array indices.  Or 
should have all types be anonymous.  Or should use structural type 
equivalence.  Or should combine data and method declarations for object 
types.  <Looks around guiltily.>  Or should have a preprocessor.  Or 
infer all types.  Or whatever.  Just like $MY_LANGUAGE.

There's a reason I don't use your language.  I assume there's a reason 
you don't use mine.  In my case, it's because I'm a hobbyist; I go with 
whatever appeals to me.  ML does and so does Piccola, and so do Cecil and 
Aldor, to a certain extent, and I'll learn them when I get around to it.  
I'm here because Ada appeals to me, although that's obscured by the 
cross-posting.  Most of the people here seem to be professionals; they 
use whatever they're told to use.  Thus the cynical comments about Ada 
and C++, describing the way they were, rather than the way they are now.

> Robert Duff made a comment a while ago about how silly most (I would
> say without much hyperbole 99+%) of the points in these threads would
> be to Lisp (and Smalltalk) folks.  I couldn't agree more.  You are all
> arguing over differences that mean almost nothing looked at from these
> other perspectives.

This is quite correct, but also largely irrelevant.  The general context 
of a language flamewar is that every feature $YOUR_LANGUAGE has that 
$MY_LANGUAGE doesn't have is unnecessary, and a clear sign of its 
inferiority.  Any feature $MY_LANGUAGE has that $YOUR_LANGUAGE lacks is 
absolutely essential, and a clear sign of its superiority.

A functional language like Lisp lacks many of the features being argued 
about here; the obvious conclusion is that Ada and C++ are painfully 
inferior.  Similarly, most of Lisp's features, such its the macro system 
or Currying, are absent from the imperative languages; a clear sign of 
Lisp's superiority.

Yes, a person can do all kinds of neat things in Lisp.  A good programmer 
can do all kinds of neat things elegantly in any language, and a bad 
programmer cannot.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I am not a good 
programmer.


> And the level
> of _expressive capability_ in

Aldor?

> is so
> _low_ that it again is simply amazing to see people so vehemently
> arguing over differences that are almost invisible.

I'm sure you meant expressive convenience.  Turing completeness ensures 
that "_expressive capability_" is equivalent, at least, for functional 
computation.  On the other hand, you seem so vehement about it, I'm not 
really sure.  I've already dealt with the conclusion I draw from your 
personal expressive capability in these languages.

Anyway, first, a quote:

"The sooner we can forget that FORTRAN has ever existed, the better, for 
as a vehicle of thought it is no longer adequate: it wastes our 
brainpower, is too risky and therefore too expensive to use."
 - E.W. Dijkstra, EWD 340

The arguments being carried on here echo this complaint.  Implicit in the 
arguments for both sides is that the one wastes brainpower while the 
other conserves it.  That's fairly important, given that brainpower is 
the only tool a programmer really has.  As for myself, I side with Ada, 
and provide as evidence the followup to one of the many code fragments in 
this thread.  "A clever trick."  Dijkstra again:

"The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of 
his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full 
humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the 
plague."