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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular? References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net> <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net> <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net> <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net> <1170347180.14376.104.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1170363233.23845.118.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1170521693.6067.214.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3oy7ndbh7l.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1170683894.12766.40.camel@localhost> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:23:52 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:1Gf0Fn5Fze6+PZc32YaB5+qKWfo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.74.38.71 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1170685129 88.74.38.71 (5 Feb 2007 15:18:49 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9004 Date: 2007-02-05T15:23:52+01:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 01:06 +0100, Markus E Leypold wrote: >> >> Hi George, > >> >> First you state your dissatisfaction with type inference and the >> typical functional style of programming in highly subjective terms. > > I can only speculate on how you can transform what I have written > into what you say I have written. I must try harder to choose my words > carefully. The way you say this, it becomes a rather one sided imposition of interpretation on my part. Actually I only wrote my last response not to just impolitely drop the discussion w/o further comment, since I was, am, absolutely dissatisfied with it. I also tried honestly to understand what went wrong ... but now I fear that just became a new reproach in your eyes. Well -- we can't be perfect. Let me state it like this: If you want to continue the discussion I must have some open "corridor" for arguments left, not just that the alternatives between shutting up or "typical FP advocate". > I will provide some simple facts and a frame of reference > for a reasonable discussion of why and when "explicitly referring" (Ada > style) is better than "inferred from context" (FP style). It will take > some time to sort out the arguments in more approachable terms. > The arguments won't stop me from using FP languages. I don't want to stop you. I only had the impression you don't want them. > They won't stop me from arguing about the costly effects of syntax > either. Well -- it will stop me. I'm not interested in syntax discussions, since I don't experience detrimental effects. Neither from ML syntax nor from Ada syntax. I'm adaptable and as Appel consider most if not all syntax discussion longer than a paragrap a complete waste of time. > For now: Since Ada was born out of an attempt to provide a > programming language specifically addressing the needs of production > in a large organization paying attention to syntax vis-a-vis > available industry standard programmers has been an important design > goal. Obviously. My suggestion (at the beginning of this thread) was that Ada in this respect reflects the state of the art 20 years ago. Not necessarily bad, but (a) application areas have changed and (b) the competitors have changed. So, my suggestion was, perhaps the ecological niche in which Ada lives has become more narrow: Those who want low level use C (either misguided or very selectively) and those who want high level use languages with more possibilities for abstraction, other type systems and GC. > I think it still is. Is born :-)? > It is therefore necessary to always refer to how a language is > apparently used. Not to how you can use a language. OK. Ada is used in embedded programming. So the OP's question must be answered with "Ada is not more popular because embedded programming is not more popular". I regret to say, that this doesn't answer the question, obviously. The OP's question was about "could have beens". But I was serious when I said, I'm tired of this discussion, so I _will_ stop here. I can't afford the time and see (momentarily) no useful goal served either. Regards -- Markus