Re: Manifesto against Vector

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<nZ6dnaivKYOgkT7dRVn-uw@megapath.net>...
> "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:bebbba07.0405122123.23661b16@posting.google.com...
> > "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:<9cadnQ6PhYWg4z_dRVn-sA@megapath.net>...
> ...
> > > > except that it is shorter, cleaner, less error prone, and easier to
> > > > read.

> The wording has too much useless verbiage. The part I left above (in
> particular) does not belong in RM wording - the RM is not trying to sell
> anyone on the benefits of a feature. (The AI needs to do that, but not the
> wording.)

OK, then put it in the AI instead. It's one line!

> ...
> > > In any case, we discussed something like 4 problems with this proposal
>  in
> > > the past. None of them are insurmountable, but they simply aren't worth
>  the
> > > effort (which is substantial). And since the the Ada 2005 effort is
> > > substantially voluteer, the effort does matter.
> >
> > I'd like to know what the 4 problems are, but I'll save you the time
> > and just ask for one non-trivial problem with having "with/use x;"
> > mean "with x; use x;" It's trivial text substitution and nothing else.
> 
> Yes, you do seem to have trouble remembering previous discussions. I suggest
> you go back and read them. One example is that "with A.B" means "with A;
> with A.B" while "use A.B" means just that; so a "simple text substitution"
> is inconsistent and likely to be confusing.

You still don't seem to get it. It's nothing more than trivial text
substitution. All the stuff about the exact meaning of "with" and
"use" is completely irrelevant here. You'd still be able to use "with"
and "use" exactly as you do now. The only difference would be the
following:

IF (IF, IF, IF, IF) you want to use "with" and "use" on the EXACT SAME
EXPRESSION, you would be able to do it with "with/use" and avoid
repeating the expression. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. In
the Ada source files I have seen, such repeats are very common.

Now, you apparently believe that "use" is overused. So be it. You
don't have to use "use", nor would you ever be forced to use
"with/use". Personally, I consider it ridiculous to use fully
qualified library calls for basic I/O and math functions, for example.
At the same time, I don't want to clutter my code by naming packages
twice at the top of the file.

> > > In any case, no syntax tweaks are going to have the slightest impact on
> > > Ada's use/popularity. If people can adjust to gibberish syntax like Lisp
>  and
> > > C++, they certainly can handle a few quirks in Ada. Bigger issues will
>  make
> > > the difference, and few, if any of them have anything to do with the
> > > language standard.
> >
> > What I am suggesting is a trivial freebie that can only help.
> 
> This is a trivial freebie that encourages horrible Ada style. That's why
> some of us (like me) would oppose it even if it *was* free, which it is not.
> 
> > It's like the difference between a long and short URL for a website. No,
> > having a short URL is not the most important factor in the popularity
> > of a website, but you better believe it is a factor. Convenience is
> > always important, and people who deny that are rarely successful
> > selling anything. Why? Because they don't give a darn about their
> > customer.
> 
> Ada has never been about *convenience*. It is about readability, and it
> about correct programs. "Use" clauses in general are a hindrance to both of
> those goals (although they can help readability in limited circumstances).
> Because they bring in *everything* from a package, it is really only safe to
> use them on the smallest or most common things -- or to limit their
> effectiveness to a small area (which of course is certainly not going to be
> in a context clause).

Here we go again. I am perfectly willing to stipulate that "use" is
overused, but I also think that there is a perfectly good use for it
in context sections for basic I/O, math, and other standard libraries.
That's why the language allows it, I suppose. But I still fail to see
how readability is improved by forcing the reader to read the same
thing twice and verify that it is indeed the same thing. But I still
fail to see how readability is improved by forcing the reader to read
the same thing twice and verify that it is indeed the same thing. I
guess I'll just never get that one.

> Tools (such as IDEs) provide whatever convenience features are needed.
> (That's true in C++ and Java as well). If Ada has a problem, it's not enough
> good tools. Wasting time messing with the syntax is not going to help that.
> 
> In any case, I've spend far more time on this topic already than it ever has
> desired. I'm not going to spend any more -- nice talking to you again.

I'm sorry you find me so annoying. I'm really not trying to be so. I'm
just trying to make a simple point.