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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,73cb216d191f0fef X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.180.10.230 with SMTP id l6mr1467425wib.3.1363420588458; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: bp2ni95163wib.1!nntp.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:56:18 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <8klywqh2pf$.1f949flc1xeia.dlg@40tude.net> <513f6e2f$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <513faaf7$0$6626$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <51408e81$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1xqmd3386hvns.1og1uql2cgnuf$.dlg@40tude.net> <5140b812$0$6575$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <13y3efy877tjl$.5yuu230sknnq$.dlg@40tude.net> <1xsmzl7alqflb$.oz1qkrleisa7$.dlg@40tude.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: p+zKE0HPHYmgiZzsZLLeGQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2013-03-16T08:56:18+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:47 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message > news:1xsmzl7alqflb$.oz1qkrleisa7$.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:51:11 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> >>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message >>> news:13y3efy877tjl$.5yuu230sknnq$.dlg@40tude.net... >>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:01:27 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: >>>> >>>>> You have many interesting ideas that would be far better served if you >>>>> described them in Ada-terms. >>>> >>>> How do you describe tagged types in Ada 83 terms? >>> >>> Why would I want to? >> >> You insisted on that claiming that Ada can be only discussed in Ada-terms. > > You didn't answer the question. Why would you want to describe something > from a recent version of the language in terms of an obsolete one? To illustrate the point that one cannot extend/modify the language discussing it in its terms, like baron Munchausen pulling yourself out of a swamp by your hair. How would you tell yourself from year 1992 about Ada 95? The other you would not listen to you. >>> Another way to put it is that raw science (as you called it) is essentially >>> irrelevant unless it can be applied to engineering. After all, *ideas* are >>> worthless; only execution has value in today's world. I care about the >>> execution (that is the usability of the design) of Ada, not how it fits into >>> someone's theory of how things should be. >> >> Then you must have wrong understanding of science. It is actually the >> reverse: if the theory does not explain facts, it is wrong. > > Huh? I'm contending that the theory is irrelevant (much like religion -- and > it shares a lot of characteristics with that). That's because you can't use > it to design a useful programming language, only to pigeon-hole and/or take > potshots at it after the fact. That's not useful or helpful. > > One could say that about a lot of basic theories. Knowledge of > thermodynamics has little to do with designing an engine; you need a lot of > knowledge about other things to do that, and thermodynamics is *way* down on > the list of things that matter. Not at all. Other things are relevant only in the context of more fundamental laws like thermodynamics. In engineering you must know, at least in theory, how to deduce any specialized rule from fundamental laws. This is what differentiates proper science and engineering from junk like economics or climatology. Granted, CS is somewhere in between. >> Ada's subtype as defined by RM is a fact to explain (and to predict >> consequences of the choices made). The theory does it quite well. The rant >> about how Ada's RM names its subtypes is absolutely irrelevant. > > But no one cares, because such matching has no relevance to anything: it's > not going to change the design of Ada (compatibility concerns would prevent > that in any case) There is no compatibility concerns. Robert said in this thread that Prime'Range, Prime'First, Prime'Last are all illegal. So it is already incompatible, if under compatibility you understand that a subtype must inherit everything. > and nothing about it would help you be a better Ada > programmer (especially as the terminology clash makes it close to impossible > to think about one and make sense of the other). On the contrary, understanding that a subtype is a type with values and operation helps a lot. Especially when it comes to aberrations like with Prime'Succ. It is an operation of Prime and the programmer should know that in Ada he has no influence on its implementation which is always inherited from the base type. If that does not correspond his intent he must change the design and use other means, e.g. tagged types or unrelated types (derive Prime privately). -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de