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 22:20:19 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 22:20:18 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024291218 28833 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2002 05:20:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jun 2002 05:20:18 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26119 Date: 2002-06-17T05:20:18+00:00 List-Id: Vinzent Hoefler 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.