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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-16 22:07:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Date: 16 Jun 2002 22:07:58 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3D0D18D5.2020601@telepath.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024290479 28438 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2002 05:07:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jun 2002 05:07:59 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26118 Date: 2002-06-17T05:07:59+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote in message news:<3D0D18D5.2020601@telepath.com>... > Russ wrote: > > Pascal Obry wrote in message news:... > > > >>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. > > Then write the preprocessor and use it. If its so much better, other > people will too. > > I don't think I'd ever use it though. First off, I think it would make > my sources much uglier. Secondly, it throws away some purposeful design I think you have a funny definition of ugly, but so be it. EVEN IF MY PROPOSAL WERE ADOPTED YOU COULD CONTINUE TO USE THE CURRENT SYNTAX. > decisions (eg: not using similar looking operators like "==" and "=") > for the apparent purpose of making the language look more like C. That's > a stupid purpose in my book. Complaining that Ada doesn't look like C is > the last gasp excuse of folks who just don't like Ada because it *isn't* > C. There's nothing you can do to reach out to those folks. Just let them > use C and be happy. Take a look at how Python handles the "=" vs. "==" "problem". They simply do not allow assignment inside an "if" test. Problem solved. And I must say that I am getting tired of people claiming that I want to "make Ada look more like C". How does the lack of semicolons resemble C? C actually does some things right, but much of what I propose to "borrow" from C did not originate with C anyway. To say that my proposal simply makes Ada look more like C is highly misleading. But I hear it so much that I wonder if some Ada folks aren't obsessed with envy over the popularity of C and C++.