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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de!lucks From: Stefan.Lucks@uni-weimar.de Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it? Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:51:21 +0200 Organization: Bauhaus-Universitaet Weimar Message-ID: References: <127b004d-2163-477b-9209-49d30d2da5e1@googlegroups.com> <59a4ee45-23fb-4b0e-905c-cc16ce46b5f6@googlegroups.com> <46b2dce1-2a1c-455d-b041-3a9d217e2c3f@googlegroups.com> <3277d769-6503-4c7f-885f-3a730762b620@googlegroups.com> <9fa68fb7-89f0-42b3-8f25-20e70cb34d63@googlegroups.com> <87egm3u662.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <20c56bea-2803-4aa9-a626-2d25e480df20@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-220497679-1432889483=:28509" X-Trace: pinkpiglet.scc.uni-weimar.de 1432889914 6505 141.54.178.228 (29 May 2015 08:58:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@pinkpiglet.scc.uni-weimar.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:58:34 +0000 (UTC) X-X-Sender: lucks@debian In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193361 Date: 2015-05-29T10:51:21+02:00 List-Id: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-220497679-1432889483=:28509 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Thu, 28 May 2015, Randy Brukardt wrote: > That leaves the actual language definition at 337 pages. To be fair, one > could eliminate stuff not even contemplated by Oberon - tasks (Chapter 9,= 40 > pages), generics (Chapter 12, 18 pages not including the example removed > earlier), and low-level programming (Chapter 13, 51 pages excluding the > example removed earlier). > > So now we're at 228 pages. With some reformatting, and removing all of th= e > introductory text, notes, and examples, we'd save at least 20% of that > (probably more). So that means that an equivalently formatted Ada standar= d > would probably be roughly 180 pages (or maybe 270 if we left everything i= n). Actually, you could get away with significantly less (I'd say, less than=20 100 pages) if you rewrote the manual in an Oberon-like (or Wirthian)=20 style, i.e., a manual that tells the programmer what he or she needs to=20 know, but leaves plenty of details unspecified which the compiler writer=20 would need to know. Such as overloading and visibility rules. For programmers, some simple=20 rules of thumb work most of the time. And if not, then the compiler will=20 give a (somewhat unexpected) error message, giving the programmer the=20 chance to fix the issue. I don't remember that by ignoring the rules I=20 ever got an executable doing something unexpected. On the other hand, for= =20 independent and compatible implementations, the reference manual is a lot= =20 more specific. Hmmm, I wonder if a new "simplistic Ada reference manual" would be=20 appreciated by programmers ... > And, of course, Wirth himself has a long history of writing sloppy langua= ge > standards and leaving when other people try to clean them up (Algol-W, > Pascal, Modula, Modula 2, ...). He's a brilliant language designer, but h= e > always has underdescribed standards. (That surely includes building > standards without any library description, which is nonsense for any > purpose.) Now *that* is unfair to Wirth! (Not the part with the brilliant language=20 designer, but the other part.) Firstly, compare the Algol-W and Pascal reports with other language=20 reports and standards proposed at the same time. Which of these had a=20 remotely reasonable standard library? Even the Ada 83 standard library=20 is rather unimpressive, IMHO. Both Algol-W and Pascal are much=20 older than Ada 83. (I am too lazy to look up when Modula has been=20 proposed.) Secondly, Oberon is younger than Ada 83, but is has been developed for a=20 specific purpose. At least initially, Oberon was not meant to become a=20 general purpose language. Also, even if there isn't much of a "Oberon=20 standard library", there is the Oberon operating system and its library. Thirdly, there are two general alternative approaches to language design: 1. Design a language precisely specifying almost everything (and defining= =20 unspecified details explicitly as unspecified), like Ada, or 2. Design a language with the specification omitting plenty of minor=20 details. Let peaople argue about it. Over time, and with practical=20 experience from using that language, fill the gaps. Either approach has advantages and disadvantages. Of course, Ada was not=20 an academic proposal, but a standard from the beginning, so approach 2 was= =20 never an option for Ada. ------ I love the taste of Cryptanalysis in the morning! ------ uni-weimar.de/de/medien/professuren/mediensicherheit/people/stefan-lucks --Stefan.Lucks (at) uni-weimar.de, Bauhaus-Universit=E4t Weimar, Germany-- --8323329-220497679-1432889483=:28509--