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-Received: by 2002:a6b:1702:: with SMTP id 2-v6mr9534871iox.101.1528082383329; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:19:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:c74c:: with SMTP id x73-v6mr529321oif.12.1528082382999; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder4.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.70.MISMATCH!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!u74-v6no4750621itb.0!news-out.google.com!z3-v6ni64iti.0!nntp.google.com!u74-v6no4750616itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 20:19:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5e86db65-84b9-4b5b-9aea-427a658b5ae7@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:18f:900:f900:6600:6aff:fe37:6bdc; posting-account=AvekzAoAAABj-TclKcOWQmXwA49MFPGX NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:18f:900:f900:6600:6aff:fe37:6bdc References: <5e86db65-84b9-4b5b-9aea-427a658b5ae7@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ada Successor Language From: John Smith Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 03:19:43 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2874 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3021478385 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52903 Date: 2018-06-03T20:19:42-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-4, Shark8 wrote: > It occurs to me that in order to design a successor to Ada, there=E2=80= =99s not merely one language that ought to be defined =E2=80=94 but five = =E2=80=94 and the reason is that Ada is several languages all at once: ther= e=E2=80=99s a language for generics, a language for proofs [SPARK], low-lev= el hardware, and a language for tasking in addition to the Ada that maps to= =E2=80=9Cnormal=E2=80=9D programming languages. > One of the frustrations about Ada as-it-is is that there is a lot that s= eems like it could be =E2=80=9Cfolded together=E2=80=9D, things like (eg) a= ll the Ada.[Wide_[Wide_]]Strings packages. Or, some sort of mechanism for [= explicitly] showing the relationships between types. > In order to do that we would need some sort of meta-language, wherein al= l the rest of the languages (ideally both syntactic and semantic) could be = defined. >=20 > (1) The Meta language > (2) The Generic Language > (3) The Concurrent/Parallelism language > (4) The Proving language [SPARK] > (5) The HW/Representation language >=20 > ---------- > Your thoughts? It seems like Ada has some legacy code (like the "Wide") that's left over. = Splitting it up into 5 different languages doesn't make any sense. It's l= ike your tetris game having some legacy features... so you decide to make 5= different games. One game just rotates a block. One game just drops bloc= ks. And so on and so on. This doesn't make any sense.