From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:c3:: with SMTP id f3mr14039639qvs.36.1608483216995; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 08:53:36 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a37:a86:: with SMTP id 128mr13639528qkk.147.1608483216850; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 08:53:36 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 08:53:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.235.180; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.235.180 References: <5fdbde31$0$6455$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <86im8ylnj4.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <5fdde913$0$3238$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <7a72951a-5a0c-42d6-ad30-357a43883b6fn@googlegroups.com> <7ecb50e0-2da8-475f-8a6b-ffb51aa195fcn@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ada syntax questions From: Andreas ZEURCHER Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 16:53:36 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:60902 List-Id: 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:=20 > > On Saturday, December 19, 2020 at 1:37:32 PM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov w= rote:=20 > >> On 2020-12-19 19:40, Andreas ZEURCHER wrote:=20 >=20 > >> If they are unsatisfied with the higher abstraction level of Ada, they= =20 > >> can switch to lower-level languages where implementation details are= =20 > >> exposed in syntax. The best we can do is to explain why such exposure = is=20 > >> a bad idea.=20 > >=20 > > No, Dmitry, that is where you are wrong. In this regard, Ada is the low= er-level, grungier, cruder, uncouther programming language, closer to assem= bly language or ALGOL60. > Then we are disagree on the definition of higher level. Mine is the=20 > level of abstraction away from calculus toward the problem space entities= .=20 Ada's inexpressiveness of imprecision of vagueness of misrepresenting desig= n intent in this regard (of inability to compile-time enforce purity of sub= routines) is clearly not abstraction. It is mere self-imposed blindness, i= gnoring 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 modificat= ions to any data outside of its parameter data and callstack-based transien= t data. Clearly when a programming language (i.e., Ada) and assembly langu= age share the same lack of feature, they are the more-primitive. Clearly w= hen other pure-keyword-equipped programming languages can facilitate & enfo= rce a higher civilization to capture the finer points of a mathematical des= cription of the problem domain via a rule-declaration & compile-time enforc= ement that assembly language lacks, they are higher-order and less primitiv= e. There is no valid definition of =E2=80=9Chigher-order programming langu= age=E2=80=9D that permits assembly language's lack of a pure keyword (or eq= uivalent purity-enforcement mechanism) to be a higher-order language than, = say, Scala with a pure keyword. Dmitry, your line of reasoning here of wha= t constitutes a higher-order language is preposterous!