Re: status of Ada STL?

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) wrote in message news:<4519e058.0206170611.260a3951@posting.google.com>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0206162107.5cf737c@posting.google.com>...
> > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:<3D0D18D5.2020601@telepath.com>...
> > >   decisions (eg: not using similar looking operators like "==" and "=") 
> > Take a look at how Python handles the "=" vs. "==" "problem". They
> 
> Perhaps. But that still does not get around the fact that you are
> using "=" for something that isn't equality, and a completely made up
> operator for something that *is* equality. Why is it not better to use
> "=" in its proper mathematical sense? ("because I'm used to that"
> isn't a good answer)

Think about it this way. Immediately after the statement "x=1"
executes, the mathematical statement "x=1" becomes true. The same does
not apply to a statement like "x=x+1", of course, but so what? Anyone
who is actually confused by something like that should either get over
it within one minute or find another profession fast. Besides that, a
much more elegant way of writing it would be "x+=1" anyway. And no, I
don't say that because it "looks like C". I say that because it is a
minimal form (the x need not be repeated, which can be noticibly
simpler in a case like,

my_very_descriptive_variable += 1

Or do you prefer 

my_very_descriptive_variable := my_very_descriptive_variable + 1;

If so, you're beyond reason.

> > 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
> 
> Actually, you are exactly right here. I'm sorry for misreading your
> spec. Please replace every occurance of "C" in my post with "Python".

Thanks for recognizing that. In my proposal I specifically referred to
Python and Fortran. I did not refer to C or C++, yet I'll bet a dozen
or so replies accuse me of wanting to "make Ada look more like C"! How
can I help but wonder if these replies are based on something other
than rational thought.

> > 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++.
> 
> Actually, the point is that we *aren't*. I don't really care how C++
> or C or Python or Oberon represents equality, any more than most of
> those folks care how Ada does it. Languages have different syntaxes.
> In Ada's case, most of it was quite thourougly thought out and
> discussed, and I seriously doubt you have come up with any startlingly
> new option that wasn't available to the original Ada designers. But
> either way, its just syntax.
> 
> Every year it seems someone comes in here with a great idea to
> suddenly make Ada immensley popular by making a dozen minor cosmetic
> changes to the syntax so that it matches some other language (that
> they happen to be used to). I suspect the *real* goal in such cases is
> that said person just got used to the other syntax, and doesn't want
> to have to adjust to Ada. So instead of working with the language,
> they try to drag the mountain to Mohhamed.
> 
> Anyway, go ahead and drag away. But don't expect any help from folks
> who are currently happily using the language as it is.

At that rate, a couple dozen regulars on comp.lang.ada will still be
proudly using Ada after everyone else has forgotten about it -- like
those Japanese soldiers who were discovered still fighting WWII on
some remote island in 1967. And they'll still be swearing that its
perfectly adequate.