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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,7b5615402713dcbb X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.74.69 with SMTP id r5mr2697459pav.12.1346142525732; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.180.205 with SMTP id bv13mr8467017qab.8.1346142525578; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.192.164 with SMTP id i24mr1061154yhn.14.1346142525556; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Path: a5ni18361pbv.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!r1no2177843qas.0!news-out.google.com!da15ni36163658qab.0!nntp.google.com!r1no2177835qas.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:28:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.150.124.2; posting-account=QrZwxQoAAAByl3YAWTpexAk3yBYyZMHn NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.150.124.2 References: <8bfbf709-18ac-43cd-b037-ce47adde96c2@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ada and Java/C++ From: kalvin.news@gmail.com Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:28:45 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-08-28T01:28:45-07:00 List-Id: tiistai, 28. elokuuta 2012 9.57.40 UTC+3 Shark8 kirjoitti: > On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:35:28 PM UTC-6, kalvi...@gmail.com wrote: >=20 > > My suggestion here is to introduce Ada's good virtues for C and Java pr= ogrammers in syntax that is familiar to most of the software engineers. >=20 > You aren't listening to the replies you're getting; it's a bad idea to tr= y to gloss over (extend) C/Java syntax. Randy's reply is a good one in expl= aining why syntax itself matters. I hear you, and I have read replies - Randy's too, and I could not agree mo= re with the replies. I do understand the fact, that the Ada's syntax is crafted for good readabi= lity and less error prone as Java/C. We are standing at the shoulders of giants here: C, Java and Ada are all ma= ture languages, and C's and Java's weaknesses are well documented. Ada has = excellent document about the rationale behind the language and the decision= s made during language development. But if the programmers *want* to use or are *insiting in using* languages w= ith resemble Java/C, then the best we can do is to fix the Java/C syntax as= much as possible, and remove or fix the parts that are considered dangerou= s. As many responders have pointed out, that it might not be possible to expre= ss Ada completely in C/Java-like syntax. Maybe we could come up with someth= ing, that is half-way between the languages. Someone in the thread suggeste= d expressing a subset of Ada in C/Java-like syntax. That might be a good an= d reasonable solution. The result would be somewhere between Ada and Java/C= : strong type checking, packages, free from error prone syntax like danglin= g-elses etc.=20 If the programmer wants to get full Ada power, they should start using Ada = instead. But they would already be half-way there: They would be accustomed= with strict type checking, packages etc. and better software construction.= And after that, the Ada might appear to be more natural to them. Btw, the ideas on implementing a preprocessor and/or JVM compiler are excel= lent. - Calvin