Re: Ada standard and maximum line lengths

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:51:52 AM UTC-6, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On 29.01.13 17:58, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> 
> So it seems obvious that there is an opportunity for
> improvement and modernization of linking by addressing
> naming in programs written in Ada, C++, and practically
> related languages. We have type theory. We have objects.
> What we don't have is types at the object code level
> ("object code. Ha!"). But could we?

Yes, we could. It would require a completely different OBJ format than is currently used and would likely benefit from not using any existing OBJ format as a base, forcing a reworking of the linking as well.

> 
> Hence, what will a .o/.obj files look like if both C++ and
> Ada wanted to let programmers write "normal length" identifiers
> for cross-language types, say?

Well IIUC, that *is* doable -- just look at OpenVMS. Of course this is achieved by enforcing (1) a common language runtime, ["Common Language Environment" in VMS parlance], and (2) the "OpenVMS Calling Standard".

> 
> Going back to my initial question. Suppose linker symbols
> were structured. Won't the rather technical need for allowing
> long identifiers in Ada source text just vanish?

I don't know. As someone mentioned up-thread there's also the 'need' to allow for tool/auto-generated code -- I can see that as more prone to producing long-names than the OBJ-situation, especially because the OBJ situation *IS* an instance of tool-generated names.