Re: status of Ada STL?

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<uu1o31wbb.fsf@wanadoo.fr>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
> 
> > I also happen to think that Ada's awkward syntax is part of the
> > problem. My proposal for a cleaner Ada syntax option can be found at
> > http://RussP.org/Ada.htm
> 
> Of course this is not Ada anymore... Do you think it is a good idea to
> push a new language to have Ada more widely used ?

Yes, it IS still essentially Ada, because you can still use standard
Ada compilers. A simple pre-processor could convert the cleaner
dialect to standard Ada 95, and ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE TO USE
STANDARD ADA 95 COULD CONTINUE TO DO SO.

I really don't understand the objection to my proposal. Ada advocates
keep telling me they like Ada's syntax and it doesn't need to be
changed. But the question is not whether CURRENT Ada users like it;
the question is why so few OTHER programmers are showing any interest
in Ada, despite it's superior fundamental design.

When programmers take a first look at a new language, the first thing
they see is the syntax. Ever heard the old expression, "The first
impression is the most important one."? And no, I am not claiming that
my syntax proposal is the entire answer, but I do believe it would be
a modest step in the right direction.