Re: Ada lacks lighterweight-than-task parallelism

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:09:26 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2018-06-21 02:19, Shark8 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:38:11 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >> On 2018-06-20 15:14, Mehdi Saada wrote:
> >>> So I guess you are in favor with deeper (and de facto) integration of compilers with static analysis tools ?
> >>
> >> Absolutely. Not as tools. SPARK must become an integral part of Ada.
> >> Static analysis and defined provable semantics is major strength of Ada.
> >>
> > Agreed; this is why I'm pushing for a heavily integrated IDE with my IDE-proposal.
> > I'd be quite interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Why do you think that an IDE is important here? (Not that I will use 
> emacs, ever! (:-))
> 
Integration.
I don't mean "IDE" like the industry has come to think of it (editor + button-to-call-external-tool). / Think more like R-1000 on steroids, not GPS.

The integration that you're proposing isn't going to be happening on this revision of the language, BUT we can integrate it as closely as possible in the form of an IDE, acting /as if/ there were a requirement for such integration. (And indeed, the Ada spec requires a degree of this WRT static analysis currently, so it certainly is possible to integrate these things.)