Re: status of Ada STL?

["chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0206162120.3acf4278@posting.google.com...
> Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch>...
> > 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, it IS still essentially Ada, because you can still use standard
> > >Ada compilers. A simple pre-processor could convert the cleaner
> > >dialect to standard Ada 95, and ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE TO USE
> > >STANDARD ADA 95 COULD CONTINUE TO DO SO.
> >
> > Mmh. How do you convert a "/=" construct then?
>
> x /= y -- new syntax
> x := x / y; -- old syntax

  x not equal to y
= x := x / y;

How long have you been programming in Ada?  The '/=' construct should be
known to you if you've been programming for any length of time.

> > And your "anyone who wants..." is no real argument. You then could
> > write a C++ to Ada-Preprocessor to get the same effect. We can going
> > on using Ada and the rest of the world can do their C++. Or do the
> > preprocessor the other way around, it might be easier.
>
> Wrong. Converting from C++ to Ada would be infinitely more complicated
> than going from Ada-F to Ada.
>
> > >I really don't understand the objection to my proposal. Ada advocates
> > >keep telling me they like Ada's syntax and it doesn't need to be
> > >changed.
> >
> > Yup. More or less this is the case. IMO the syntax is well chosen,
> > perhaps not perfect, but very good and clear.
>
> Let me repeat: YOU'S STILL BE ABLE TO USE IT EVEN IF MY PROPOSAL WAS
> ADOPTED.

<What's with all the shouting?>

How would you tell equals from assignment equals in your new mode?  I mean
if you're allowed both they'd need to be mutually exclusive otherwise they'd
confuse the reader and maybe even the compiler.


> > Personally I like ":=" much more than "=". Although in Ada there would
> > be no possibility to do "if (a = b)" vs. "if (a == b)" like in C, I
> > like the slightly mathematically approach of saying "this gives"
> > instead of "this is equal" for assignments definitely more.
>
> I heard that ":=" was originally chosen by some early language
> designer (can't remember who) who actually wanted to use "<=", but his
> ancient ancient keyboard didn't have "<". You've fooled yourself into
> thinking it has some deep meaning. Einstein said, "Everything should
> be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." So Einstein agrees
> with me.

Vincent isn't saying it's got a deeper meaning, he's saying he prefers to
use a mathematical symbol the way it's supposed to be used (and is used) and
have a separate symbol for assignment which is entirely different from
equality (equality is either true or false, assignment is neither).

(Personally I agree with Jeff '<-' is a much nicer symbol for assignment, it
looks like 'take the right and put it into the left' and it's quite
natural).

Also Einstien wouldn't agree with you, you'd still have two symbols (one for
assignment and one for equality), instead would throw his hands up in
disgust at the change in meaning of a well defined mathematical symbol.

btw I don't dislike c symbols, I just dislike ppl who think Ada should look
like C to get a bit of recognition.  It's just plain silly.  The language is
the way it is.

The best way to promote Ada (if that's what you want to do) is to write
software in it, not mess with it's syntax.

Chris