Re: status of Ada STL?

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) wrote in message news:<4519e058.0206180630.b6ef8cd@posting.google.com>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0206172155.1d50bbac@posting.google.com>...
> > 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
> 
> Thanks. I could not have come up with a better example of why "=" for
> assignment is confusing and inappropriate myself.
> 
> > 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
> 
> The problem with that logic is:
> 
>   o Ada use is increasing already (according to the vendors).
>   o There is absolutely no evidence that minor syntax differences with
> Python is significantly holding Ada back. That might seem
> self-obvioius to a big Python fan, but such people are hardly
> unbiased. Big Lisp fans would probably say the same about Lisp. Big
> Fourth fans would say the same about Forth.
>   o There is also no evidence that you won't loose all the big Pascal,
> Modula-*, and Oberon fans who are Ada users by doing this (and there
> are probably *way* more of those around than interested Python fans).

You are good at constructing a straw man and then knocking it down.
The problem is not that Ada is not like Python or even C or C++. The
problem (or, rather, one of the problems) with Ada is that it uses
non-standard syntax compared to ALL of the major languages in use in
industry today. That includes C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, and perhaps
even Fortran. Every one of those languages uses "=" for assignment,
for example. And Pascal, Modula*, Lisp, and Forth are hardly major
industrial languages.

> If you hang out here long enough (or read back through the archives),
> I guarantee you will come across all of the following:
> 
>    o  Big C fans who think Ada is only being held back by non-C-like
> syntax
>    o  Big .NET fans who are convinced Ada is only being held back from
> huge success by lack of .NET support.
>    o  Big Java fans who are convinced Ada is only being held back from
> huge success by lack of JVM support (now obsolete and proven wrong).
>    o  Big Delphi fans who are convinced Ada is only being held back
> due to its lack of a Delphi-like library and interface.
>    o  Longtime VisualC++ users who are convinced Ada is only being
> held back due to lack of a Visual programming environment.
> 
> I've been here long enough to have heard just about every theory there
> is. Frankly, I don't think the syntax theories hold any water at all.
> The programming environment theories are a smidge better, but no more.
> 
> The main reason hordes of people don't switch to Ada is that
> programmers are a very conservative lot. Given a choice, they fight
> hard to use the language they are most familiar with. Programming
> managers are even more so, since they aren't technically involved
> enough to have any judgement point other than past use. People comming
> here saying that Ada use would take off if only it used syntax items
> from their own favorite other language are just further examples of
> this principle.

And if Ada was a bit more like the other major industrial languages,
perhaps many more programmers would be willing to give it a try -- and
less likely to get frustrated by all those "missing :=" nuisance
messages.

> If we look at past successes, what builds language bases isn't
> wonderful syntax, but rather heavy marketing campaigns (with hopefully
> a germ of truth under all the BS). If we want usage to skyrocket, then
> we need to somehow foster the (generally self-fufilling) impression
> that Ada is a "hot" language. Its a bit tough to do that with no big
> moneybags company like Sun or Microsoft behind us. When someone comes
> in here and starts an "Ada's syntax is all wrong" thread, if anything
> its counterproductive.

I think you're guess is no better than mine on that point. Actually,
what motivated me to make my proposal is the desire for a programming
that is both fundamentally solid AND with a clean, syntax that is
consistent with all the other major industrial languages. I think your
theory that languages get popular only through cynical marketing is
basically wrong. Java's initial hype was due more to the promise of
platform independence and neutralizing Microsoft than some advertizing
campaign by Sun.

And by the way, why do you suppose that Java adopted C++ syntax? To be
as consistent as possible with the rest of the programming world. And
no, I am not suggesting that C++ is the best model for syntax, but at
least it uses "=" for assignment!

> Don't let this stop you from implementing your Pythada preprocessor
> though. Just don't expect it to be used by anyone but big Python fans
> new to Ada, very few of which are hanging out in this newsgroup to be
> recruited. Perhaps you would have more luck getting support from a
> Python newsgroup.

I may just give it a try one of these days when I have some free time,
though it's cetainly not my specialty. I would write it in Python, and
eventually perhaps port it to Ada.