Re: Ada syntax questions

[Andreas ZEURCHER <ZUERCHER_Andreas@outlook.com>]

On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 2:47:54 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2020-12-19 23:11, Andreas ZEURCHER wrote: 
> > On Saturday, December 19, 2020 at 1:37:32 PM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: 
> >> On 2020-12-19 19:40, Andreas ZEURCHER wrote: 
> 
> >> If they are unsatisfied with the higher abstraction level of Ada, they 
> >> can switch to lower-level languages where implementation details are 
> >> exposed in syntax. The best we can do is to explain why such exposure is 
> >> a bad idea. 
> > 
> > No, Dmitry, that is where you are wrong. In this regard, Ada is the lower-level, grungier, cruder, uncouther programming language, closer to assembly language or ALGOL60.
> Then we are disagree on the definition of higher level. Mine is the 
> level of abstraction away from calculus toward the problem space entities. 

Ada's inexpressiveness of imprecision of vagueness of misrepresenting design intent in this regard (of inability to compile-time enforce purity of subroutines) is clearly not abstraction.  It is mere self-imposed blindness, ignoring the purity-enforcement topic altogether.  Assembly language and Ada have the same inability to overtly express and enforce a declaration of FP-purity.  Other languages have a pure keyword or equivalent for subroutines (i.e., functions, procedures, lambdas, coroutines, generators) to overtly express compile-time-enforced purity of the subroutine not making modifications to any data outside of its parameter data and callstack-based transient data.  Clearly when a programming language (i.e., Ada) and assembly language share the same lack of feature, they are the more-primitive.  Clearly when other pure-keyword-equipped programming languages can facilitate & enforce a higher civilization to capture the finer points of a mathematical description of the problem domain via a rule-declaration & compile-time enforcement that assembly language lacks, they are higher-order and less primitive.  There is no valid definition of “higher-order programming language” that permits assembly language's lack of a pure keyword (or equivalent purity-enforcement mechanism) to be a higher-order language than, say, Scala with a pure keyword.  Dmitry, your line of reasoning here of what constitutes a higher-order language is preposterous!