Re: Manifesto against Vector

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote in message news:<mailman.68.1083695056.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>...
> > While I agree that Vector is not the best name for this abstraction, I
> > have expressed my opinion and the reasons behind it to the ARG during
> > earlier discussions of AI-302-03, and the ARG chose Vector. The
> > discussion is over.
> 
> It's not over. It was tacitly postponed. I remember that discussion, and
> I've just reviewed it. The main argument for "vectors" is that it is widely
> used. Well, this argument is simply false. I my 20+ years of programming
> languages "array" is clearly the term mostly used. "Vector" is just an
> STLism and Java fad. There is additional experience exposed in the
> discussion. Incidently, Kopolovich participated, and his arguments are
> mostly right. As with all naming issues this one was tacitly postponed then
> in favour of design issues. But now the design is done with, and it's time
> to perfect naming. A similar thing happened with the indefinite elements
> issue. It was once tacitly postponed, with the apparent tendency of *not* to
> have them. But then when the more pressing issues cleared, the issue was
> brought back, and the position inverted: we now have containers of
> indefinite elements in the standard. Compared to this, changing "vectors" to
> "arrays" will be a breeze. That said...

Some of you may recall that I am an aerospace engineer rather than a
software engineer. My objection the the name "vector" is that it has a
specific meaning in science and engineering, and its not an unbounded
array. A vector is a physical quantity with an direction and a
magnitude. Force and velocity are vectors, for example.

In state estimation and control theory, a "state vector" is a list of
scalars and/or vectors that could include such things as position,
velocity, attitude, etc. It is manipulated according to the rules of
"Linear Algebra," an amazingly complex and useful branch of
mathematics that deals with vectors and matrices.

When I first heard about C++ STL "vectors," I was a bit puzzled as to
why they chose to override such a common and useful name. I agree with
the original poster that Ada should not repeat the mistake.

By the way, where do we stand on "with/use"? Ada needs it, and I hope
you guys aren't fumbling the ball on that!