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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.66.196 with SMTP id h4mr25268pat.22.1402779917976; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:05:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.108.66 with SMTP id i60mr41qgf.39.1402779917908; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Path: border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!a13no2137717igq.0!news-out.google.com!a8ni4126qaq.1!nntp.google.com!i13no1616206qae.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:05:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9qbfr6yf0gnb.182y1qs9eigz4$.dlg@40tude.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.65.97.192; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.65.97.192 References: <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <9qednXOIGNDuLQXORVn_vwA@giganews.com> <1872904482424209024.314619laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <810507a4-427e-42bb-a468-e5939a4470db@googlegroups.com> <9qbfr6yf0gnb.182y1qs9eigz4$.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:05:17 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 3159 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:186912 Date: 2014-06-14T14:05:17-07:00 List-Id: W dniu pi=C4=85tek, 13 czerwca 2014 10:36:49 UTC+2 u=C5=BCytkownik Dmitry A= . Kazakov napisa=C5=82: > 1. From the language design POV, everything possible must be moved out th= e > language into the library. What if we treat the standard library as part of the language? Anyway, the = border is fuzzy, as there are things at the library level that require dedi= cated language magic to work. > If Ada were a better language, array could be a > library container. Assembly language fits that ideal, right? > If Ada were a worse language containers must have been > implemented at the language level. This is an extremist view and quite unfounded. Let try: dynamic memory. Ada has a built-in operator (new) for dynamic allo= cation of objects. The C programming language move the dynamic allocation t= o the library (malloc and friends). How would you compare these two approac= hes in terms of the language being better or worse? If you are fine with the "new" operation at the language level, why not dic= tionaries? I don't see any objective rules here, only subjective opinions. > 2. Associative arrays are made by their non-functional requirements. The > implementations hugely differ if task-safety, persistence, search/index > heuristics required/available. Oh, dynamic memory is the same in this aspect. Should it be in the language= or in the library? --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com