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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.129.57.84 with SMTP id g81mr717740ywa.127.1484043230649; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.18.211 with SMTP id g77mr12873otg.14.1484043230613; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!i7no836938qta.1!news-out.google.com!u18ni16523ita.0!nntp.google.com!r185no1196732ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:2ab8:224:1:71e5:90d3:93df:d3f0; posting-account=F4OyugoAAABQod8iTn6AU7wMocsaGOvw NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:2ab8:224:1:71e5:90d3:93df:d3f0 References: <87r34j39u6.fsf@nightsong.com> <7643d59e-061f-42df-adda-9322608f127b@googlegroups.com> <5b52afcc-120e-41a5-bab2-7f5c6f647cc2@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Introductory Ada Programming Book From: raph.amiard@gmail.com Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:13:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33089 Date: 2017-01-10T02:13:50-08:00 List-Id: Le jeudi 5 janvier 2017 07:36:53 UTC+1, J-P. Rosen a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > >> Ada is, alas, a one-pass language, so things need to be prototyped if > >> you're going to refer to them before they're defined. > >=20 > > This is generally true, and the areas of the language where it's not > (aspects) are full of gotchas. While it's not always true, my feeling is > that there *was* a strong push to keep Ada compilable by a one pass > compiler (which GNAT is, in broad strokes). > >=20 > I don't think that one pass was ever a requirement for Ada. Ok, the fact remains that Ada today is compilable by a one pass compiler (p= roof: GNAT), which would not be possible if you added some features common = in other languages. Just to be clear: I don't think it's a defect. > Claiming > that some things are "unfortunately" the way they are to make compilers > naively simpler sends a wrong message, and is unfair to the huge work > performed by compilers. You're inferring 80% of the meaning from the author's original statement he= re. He did not write most of what you have written, except for "unfortunate= ly", which is a user perspective. Users have the write to disagree with lan= guage design choices, luckily !