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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to make Ada popular. Get rid of ";" at end of statement. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:35:06 +0300 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: References: <5d9a8728-3c5b-4caf-b765-a455ba4d3523@googlegroups.com> <5fb45b9c-d7da-447c-999e-0e8bcce2eed5@googlegroups.com> <5467cebd-79c3-444c-b28d-a6a217bca0e5@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net CYz0vw6OqfWk7afqiYjrnAL4pqOS+YvYnjUjrqFhEsst8mNwES Cancel-Lock: sha1:o8/Tgsax7E4Lp6yoA2NMWKOYhjA= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56953 Date: 2019-07-26T14:35:06+03:00 List-Id: On 19-07-26 13:54 , antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > Ingo M. wrote: >> Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2019 17:29:06 UTC+2 schrieb Dmitry A. >> Kazakov: >> >>> It is worse than C/C++. It is largely model-driven design with >>> software written or drawn in the form of diagrams which prevent >>> even C/C++ rudimentary safety checks. Assorted chunks of code >>> generated from diagrams are then piled together into one system. >> >> If that is usual then it should not matter which language the code >> generator uses to produce the final result. It would not matter if >> the object code language is C, or C++, or Ada, or whatever. So, why >> not use a _safe_ language for that? > > IME any restriction in target language tends to complicate > generator. Ada gives you bundled deal. Some safety rules make sense > whatever language you use, but some other are just arbitrary > complication. For example, IIRC Ada function can not have output > parameters. They can, today. And of course there were ways to get the same effect, before. > So, less restrivtive target language is more convenient > for generaator. I would be afraid that generating the less restrictve language could hide and mask bugs in the generator. > Also, macros in target language simplify generator. Theoretically > you may think that generator can do expansion. It can, but in > practice macros in target language make difference. Of course there are any number of macro systems that could be used in the generator Ada, although Ada has no macro system built in. But again, I would be afraid that extensive use of macros in the generated code would make it harder to review for generator errors, and could also hide inefficient generated code. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .