From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d303864ae4c70ad
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-16 04:37:29 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-039-235.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:36:48 +0200
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <c5ogh7$4020e$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <u4qrv5hwr.fsf@acm.org>
 <c58jfr$2qh7ca$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404100735.7b2a8317@posting.google.com>
 <c5b6pt$2pcs4d$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404130130.66d5e721@posting.google.com>
 <c5gkoq$1div2$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404131441.20b8a942@posting.google.com>
 <c5itv4$25vpm$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404140703.49e1e2f2@posting.google.com>
 <c5lolr$33qke$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404151629.5e270f63@posting.google.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-039-235.arcor-ip.net (145.254.39.235)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082115447 4196366 I 145.254.39.235 ([77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7201
Date: 2004-04-16T13:36:48+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wojtek Narczynski wrote:

>> Sorry, but I still do not get your point. Either Ada features are 1)
>> beyond any help; 2) OK, but has to be impoved in some definite way; 3)
>> Excellent. It seems that you do not agree with (3). So either (1) or (2)
>> remain. Which one?
> 
> Depends on the application. For highly concurrent data structures that
> would be 1, for tutorials 3.

Does it mean that 1.a) there is a better approach, or that 1.b) parallel
applications are hard to develop? I would definitely disagree with the
first and agree with the second.

> For many applications they are probably
> okay. I am talking about concurrency features only now, but other
> parts of the language also have their problems.

Any language has problems.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de