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: 2002-06-14 15:00:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pd955e9ab.dip.t-dialin.NET!not-for-mail From: Immanuel Scholz Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada paper critic Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 00:01:43 +0200 Message-ID: References: <3D0A399C.EF6F1BD9@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: pd955e9ab.dip.t-dialin.net (217.85.233.171) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1024092041 6209262 217.85.233.171 (16 [100557]) User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25989 Date: 2002-06-15T00:01:43+02:00 List-Id: Ehud Lamm wrote: >> > Finally, this is clearly a troll. Let us all show the superiority of >> > those who use Ada by never responding to trolls. > > Right! Wrong. Sometimes only provocative statements can change you from a local maximum of tapping yourself on the shoulder, if you get my mind. > No. Most of them are simply incorrect. So he is not really helping you > (the OP). > > Ada is not perfect, but understanding the weak points in a language is not > easy. You have to undersand the language itself quite well. > You may check Ada-Issues and the ARG mailing list, for some problems > people are trying to fix with the language. > You may also use the language for awhile. > I agree that a nice discussion of problems with the language can be an > interesting read. Perhaps you can learn something from the issues raised > about Ada83 when Ada95 was designed. Maybe I was searching not for a too philosophic answer. I am actually interested more in a somewhat dirty reply - the paper I have to write is not as academic as it should be. But you are right. I should learn (and I am willing to) more about Ada. It seems quite fascinating to me, especially because it is significant harder to write really nasty code in ada. > I can't get into many details here, and each issue itself is > controversial. But I agree that sometimes automatic template instantiation > can be nice. I also think template specialization can be quite useful. > I would like larger (STL like) standard library (well, you all know that > by now...). Maybe... but it is a powerful weapon that can be used against you. I prefer languages without too powerful weapons (my definition for too powerful ends somewhere about "operator-overloading" ;-). (The extense use of pointer arithmetic is the wordst and most powerful weapon in C). > There are many other issues, I think the question itself is to broad. If > you want to gain insight choose some area a bit more specific to think/ask > about (e.g., generics, OOP, or whatever). What about the operator overloading possibilities in ada? One disadvantage I recovered up to now is the lack of a GUI-Library to develop on the graphical sector. Are there any library out (beside GTK's)? Immanuel Scholz