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 23:01:38 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 23:01:37 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <3FB1609E.D56E315C@fakeaddress.nil> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068966098 5008 127.0.0.1 (16 Nov 2003 07:01:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:01:38 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2535 Date: 2003-11-15T23:01:37-08:00 List-Id: "Chad R. Meiners" wrote in message news:... > "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message > news:bebbba07.0311151412.6bf52757@posting.google.com... > > Thank you for the lecture in civility, Saint Chad. I'm happy to know > > that you will be there to chastise the next person who insults me. > > Just for the record, I have apologized for my admittedly rude remarks > > in the past, but nobody has apologized to me for equally offensive > > remarks. > > I never claimed to be a saint nor do I aspire to become one. Just for the > record you have apologized for only some of you rude remarks. ;-) Which is more than can be said for anyone else on this forum, or at least the part of it I've seen. > Deduction and reasoning is not a replacement for experience. The believe so > is the source of hubris. You are free to comment on Ada, but it would be > wise to listen to the counterarguments and comments of those that have > actual experience in working with Ada. Remember scientific a hypothesis > must be supported by experienced behavior. The same is true about all > rational discussions about languages. > > > I am one of those rare non-Ada > > programmers who recognizes the value of Ada, and look at how much > > respect I get from you and others, Saint Chad. > > I have treated you with basic civility and respect. On this post I would agree that you have. However, your previous post was more than a little patronizing. I think you will find that most people naturally resent being patronized and lectured to. Then again, maybe I deserved it. On the other hand, I think there's a tendency here to mistake impassioned debate with a personal attack. In any case, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this one, because I simply cannot agree with your position. As I wrote before, Python has import math # equivalent to Ada "with" and from math import * # equivalent to Ada "use" and you do not need to precede the latter with the former. The latter stands alone perfectly well. As far as I know, this has never been called "inconsistent" or considered even a minor issue in the Python community. It's a complete non-issue, and I'll bet that if I clained on comp.lang.python that this is somehow inconsistent or error prone, people there would consider me a nut case. Yes, I realize that Ada is not Python, and Ada is intended for safety critical code and Python is not. However, the safety of Ada does not come from redundant "with" and "use". Purists who think otherwise remind me of military purists. In bootcamp they force you to keep your shoes shiny and your uniform folded perfectly. Why? Because it establishes discipline. Do shiny shoes make you a more effective fighter? Of course not. But try to argue that with a marine DI. It would be very much like arguing here that redundant "with" and "use" does not make your code "safer" or more reliable. You just cannot penetrate a certain mindset.