Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? [although this thread changed to something else a long time ago]

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<vn96gc8urk7s58@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:uwubvie8a.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
> > What about
> >
> >    lwienfowowoenfnowoqnd += 1
> >
> > and
> >
> >    lwienfowowoenfnowoqnd := 1

or     lwienfowowoenfnowoqnd :+ 1  -- my suggested syntax

> > How many chances there is to misread one for another in a real-world
> > application ?
> 
> Exactly. An important part of Ada is that its syntax was designed (as much
> as possible) to make one character errors generate something illegal. For
> most constructs, it takes several characters of change to create something
> else legal. This is definitely not true of C-family syntax. And this is the
> root of Ada's philosphy, that small changes do not change the meaning of a
> program, they simply make it illegal.
> 
> (Yes, Ada does allow arithmetic operators, for the obvious reason that it
> would have too weird to say "Add" instead of "+". And it certainly is clear
> that you can't get rid of all one character errors, at least as long as you
> allow numbers. But that doesn't eliminate the basic point.)

Hmmm... that's funny. I see that Ada has :=, /=, >=, and <=, all of
which differ by one character. With sloppiness like that, Ada must be
driving airplanes into buildings on a regular basis. Then again,
there's <=, <<, and <>, not to mention =>.

An apparently you disagree with the original design of Ada, which as
you concede allows +, -, *, and /. I guess you think it should have
used a:=Plus(a,b).

I point out, furthermore, that a "one-character" difference is *much*
easier to detect in an operator than it is in a complex variable
name/reference, which was the point of my message that was quoted in
part above.

I've seen some weak arguments here, and this one is typical. What is
increasingly apparent to me is that Ada veterans are set in their
ways, and no amount of reason will budge them on the basic syntax of
Ada, even when if is deficient compared to the existing languages that
98% of programmers use.

I'm sorry if I'm not showing you enough respect. I am not questioning
your intelligence or even your judgment on more complex matters that I
would have no clue about, but only on this low-level matter. Everyone
has a blind spot somewhere, and I think you have one here.

Just so you know a bit about me, I am an aerospace research engineer,
and I work at a major government research lab with the leading experts
in the world on the future of air traffic management. I try to
maintain some level of anonymity on this forum because I am in a
position of some influence, though certainly not great power. I think
Ada will be indispensible for the increasing level of automation that
will be needed in the future. However, I am the *only* one here who
thinks that, and I am considered something of a pariah on the subject.
Apparently even the FAA is abandoning Ada. I don't want to exaggerate
my influence, but I can tell you that I may be literally one of the
last hopes for Ada in air traffic control in the US. Scary, eh?