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: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-15 22:15:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Clause "with and use" Date: 15 Nov 2003 22:15:22 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068963322 2123 127.0.0.1 (16 Nov 2003 06:15:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:15:22 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2534 Date: 2003-11-15T22:15:22-08:00 List-Id: "Stephane Richard" wrote in message news:... > "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message > news:bebbba07.0311151619.400e3b6f@posting.google.com... > > "Stephane Richard" wrote in message > news:... > > > > No, I am not "convinced that C++'s semantics and syntax is what made > > it popular." I've made this abundantly clear in the past, but let me > > clarify it again. What I *am* convinced of is that C++'s syntax did > > not stand in its way of gaining popularity. Like the vast majority of > > the other popular languages around today, C++ has a "standard" > > assignment operator, for example. And like C, Java, Perl, and Python, > > it has augmented assignment operators. > > > *** You're right, the syntax didn't stand in the way of it's popularity, > What I'm saying is if Ada, was used instead of C/C++ to develop and bundled > free with it, Things would have been different. and Ada's syntax would not > have stood in the way of it's popularity either. I don't think you (or anyone) could possibly know that. > *** Well, selling houses didn't work, now we're choosing brides ? :-) (no > pun intended). I see your analogy Russ. Let's talk about that clutter at > the beginning of the file. As you know Ada, much like Pascal dialects, do > not require a namespace, names being isolated by package names (of course > providing there's no conflict in package names but if there is, Ada will > report it). In C++ today it's not enough to compare With and Use with C++'s > #include statement. > > With Ada.Text_IO; USE Ada.Text_IO; > > Isn't like saying > #include > > It's more like saying > > #include > using namespace ; Yes, I agree. However, C++ is stuck with this approach because the is not the same as the . In Ada, the package name *is* the namespace, so there is no inherent need to specify two different entities. Here's a chance for Ada to actually be cleaner and more convenient than C++, but it's apparently being squandered.