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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-10 07:09:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:09:18 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> <254c16a.0305011035.13133e8d@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com> <17cd177c.0305072114.24f04783@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305090612.261d5a5c@posting.google.com> <254c16a.0305091127.42ec7b21@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.b8.72 X-Server-Date: 10 May 2003 14:09:53 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63478 comp.object:63158 comp.lang.ada:37148 misc.misc:14074 Date: 2003-05-10T14:09:53+00:00 List-Id: I think this is an execlent illustration of a point you made elsewhere. Ada types and checks are nice for avoiding errors, but an even bigger benefit is that they allow you to express the solution to a problem in a manner that is reflective of the problem. Sort of like the difference between a language that allowed only 1 character for variable names (or 6 or 8 or some limited number) versus a language that has unlimited length identifiers. Sure, you can program a solution to something using names like X and Y and Z and one might argue that "Any Competent Programmer" would document the meanings of X, Y and Z with comments and be able to follow the "intuitively obvious" meaning of the code from there (to *competent* programmers, of course). But given unlimited length identifiers, would not the solution be more reflective of the problem at hand? The same thing goes for use of type definitions. You can get there with int and float and char and bool, but isn't it a lot more expressive of the problem when you can define types that reflect the intent behind what you're trying to solve? Wasn't that one of the incentives behind the whole OO thing? MDC Marc A. Criley wrote in message news:254c16a.0305091127.42ec7b21@posting.google.com... > softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) wrote in message news:<9fa75d42.0305090612.261d5a5c@posting.google.com>... > > So here's a situation where I use integer subranges regularly: > arrays! I virtually never declare an array where the bounds are > explicitly specified as part of the _array_ definition. I always do > something like this: > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds." -- H. Simpson ======================================================================