Re: += in ada

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3F900F35.50203@comcast.net>...
> Russ wrote:

> > I read all sorts of discussion on this forum about the need for
> > standard libraries for Ada. Well, why not start at the bottom with
> > standard symbols for common procedures? C++ has the STL, and it also
> > has a standard symbol for incrementing a stupid counter. Every
> > C/C++/Java/Perl/Python programmer in the world is on the same page.
> > But Ada leaves the naming as an excercize for the programmer, and I'm
> > sure there are almost as many conventions as programmers. If that
> > somehow helps "readability", then your definition of "readability" is
> > not the same as mine.
> 
> This is where you are just p***ing up a rope.  Ada programmers don't 
> LIKE the implied side effects associated with += and other such 
> operators in C.  You will never get anyone who does a lot of programming 
> in Ada to accept it.  On the other hand for Inc(Foo); and ++Foo; there 
> is one effect, and it is the intended effect, not a side effect.

I simply do not understand your reasoning here. How does "+=" (or
":+") have any more side effects than "Inc" or "++"? They are all just
procedures. Please give me an example where "+=" has a side effect
that "Inc" or "++" cannot have. Until you do, I think you may have
just exposed the irrationality of your objection to augmented
assignment operators.

> There is a HUGE difference between X += 1; and X := 1; and that is what 
> you are fighting. It is a readability issue.  How many times do I have 
> to misread :+ as := to wipe out all the advantage from adding :+ to Ada? 

Yes, and there is a huge difference between 100000.0 and 1000000.0
too. There is a huge difference between X := Y * 2 and X := Y + 2.
There is a huge difference between X <= Y and X >= Y. So what? I have
no trouble distinguishing between them, and I have no trouble
distinguishing between := and :+. They look as different as day and
night to me.

As I said before, I am not a professional programmer or computer
scientist. I am aerospace engineer working on future concepts for
safety critical air traffic management systems 20 years in the future.
I would like to think that Ada will be an option when the time comes
to implement my concepts, but I am losing hope.

Because my formal training is not in programming or computer science,
I have restricted my comments on Ada to relatively low-level aspects
of the language. I don't consider myself qualified to comment on more
complicated issues. However, judging by my experience here, I am
losing faith in the Ada community. If you can't get the little things
right, how in the world can you can the complicated things right? I
don't think you can, and I don't think you will.

I have read several times here that augmented assignment operators are
a "non-starter", but I have yet to read any good reason why, other
than the lack of manpower in the Ada world. That tells me that Ada is
over the hill. Yesterday's news. Ossified. Ada is a legacy language.
RIP.