Re: status of Ada STL?

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Mmh. How do you convert a "/=" construct then?

x /= y -- new syntax
x := x / y; -- old syntax


> And your "anyone who wants..." is no real argument. You then could
> write a C++ to Ada-Preprocessor to get the same effect. We can going
> on using Ada and the rest of the world can do their C++. Or do the
> preprocessor the other way around, it might be easier.

Wrong. Converting from C++ to Ada would be infinitely more complicated
than going from Ada-F to Ada.

> >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.
> 
> Yup. More or less this is the case. IMO the syntax is well chosen,
> perhaps not perfect, but very good and clear.

Let me repeat: YOU'S STILL BE ABLE TO USE IT EVEN IF MY PROPOSAL WAS
ADOPTED.

> >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.
> 
> Because they are using C-like languages.

Maybe. Maybe not. But so what?

> >When programmers take a first look at a new language, the first thing
> >they see is the syntax.
> 
> Yes. But it is not this impression only that should let you decide.
> 
> >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.
> 
> And the next step would be to replace "begin end" by "{ }"? Well, if I
> wanted C++, I wouldn't have chosen Ada. :->

I would not go that far.

> Personally I like ":=" much more than "=". Although in Ada there would
> be no possibility to do "if (a = b)" vs. "if (a == b)" like in C, I
> like the slightly mathematically approach of saying "this gives"
> instead of "this is equal" for assignments definitely more.

I heard that ":=" was originally chosen by some early language
designer (can't remember who) who actually wanted to use "<=", but his
ancient ancient keyboard didn't have "<". You've fooled yourself into
thinking it has some deep meaning. Einstein said, "Everything should
be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." So Einstein agrees
with me.

> And what I definitely *hate* are those short-cut-constructs like "*="
> that never say what they really do. I consider them as totally
> unreadable: "a multiplied (with?) equal is 2? - What the heck is
> that?" This goes against the data flow. An assignment operation should
> be simple, left side is *where* to assign, right side is *what* to
> assign.
> Today's compilers are smart enough to let you not do such optimization
> constructs and could let you use a clear and readable construct for
> assigning a new value.

Every good C++ programmer knows that "+=" is much more efficient than
"+" for vector/matrix addition because it eliminates the need for
constructing a temporary matrix to hold the sum.

> I love the way Ada does. You want an assignment? - So do that. Not the
> C way: Ok, you can do it *this way* or you can do it *that way*.
> 
> I think the C++-way is wrong, so considering it integrating into an
> Ada-like language would be the totally false way, IMO.
> 
> Sorry, just my opinion. But a lot of my arguments for the more clear
> Ada-syntax simply would vanish in a haze then. :-)
> 
> Vinzent.