Re: status of Ada STL?

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

To most Ada users, the syntax is not "klunky" and it is the least of their
concerns. Ada may shrivel up and die - but it won't be because of the
syntax. It may die because programmers don't like the rigid structure -
prefering to be "free spirits". It may die because programmers don't like
its type safety or its tasking model or its method of supporting OO
Programming or a dozen other more "global" and "serious" concerns. But it
won't die because the syntax for assignment is ":=" instead of "=". I've got
to believe that most programmers are more "grown up " than that and can get
over their personal preferences for this style or that style of syntactic
notation to look at the much more significant issues of how well the
language does the work that they want to do.

Try researching the criticisms that have been leveled against Ada in various
newsgroups, websites, articles, etc. You'll easily find a lot of them. You
won't find much reference to "klunky" syntax among the criticisms.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0206201447.7d70511d@posting.google.com...
>
> So we agree that Ada is a technically superior language -- and it had
> the mother of all "moneybags" solidly behind it in the form of a
> mandate. I wonder why it isn't as popular as C, C++, and Java. Could
> the klunky syntax be a part of the problem?