Re: += in ada

["Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0310191559.5d9fa9@posting.google.com...
> You said that "+=" has more side effects than "Inc" or "++", and I
> challenged you for an example where "+=" has a side effect that "Inc"
> or "++" cannot have. I'm still waiting for your example, and I have a
> feeling I'll be waiting for quite a while.

x += y += 1;

which you cannot do with "++" or an Inc procedure.

> Here's a word of advice for all you young programmers out there (if
> there are any here). Don't get too attached to Ada, because your job
> prospects as an Ada programmer in the next 20 years will be slim to
> none. No, its not just because Ada doesn't have "+=", but it *is*
> because of the attitude that refuses to add it, and compares such a
> minor addition to the language to a "9.5 on the Richter scale."

These are all interesting perspectives from someone that has claimed that he
is not a professional programmer and that he does not know Ada.  This might
explain why you are fixated upon a little issue such as augmented assignment
but are completely unconcerned about how the Ada was designed to be a safe
and consentient language.

Now let us get back to the original problem, Russ.  You are worried that
future air traffic control software will not be written in Ada because Ada
does not have augmented assignments.  Now it seems to me that augmented
assignments is a bogus requirement for air traffic control software;
furthermore, it should not take precedence over important requirements such
as readability, and early error detection.   Anyone lobbying for augmented
assignment features over safety features should be fired if they are
developing safety critical software.

> Congratulations, Mr. Eachus, you've won the battle. But you (and all
> the other regulars on this tiny little newsgroup) are losing the war.

I assume you mean the war against ignorance ;-)  Well you can give people
knowledge, but you can't force them to understand it.

> You are developing the perfect language that nobody (except people
> named Preben) will use any more unless they are forced to maintain
> legacy code to feed themselves. Ada will be the COBOL of the next
> generation -- except that it won't be used nearly as much.

People that use Ada are people that feel safety and maintenance are
important characteristics of a programming language.