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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-15 03:35:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Stephane Richard" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: for reply from news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no> <3FB1609E.D56E315C@fakeaddress.nil> Subject: Re: Clause "with and use" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:35:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.44.78.25 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1068896141 129.44.78.25 (Sat, 15 Nov 2003 06:35:41 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 06:35:41 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2512 Date: 2003-11-15T11:35:41+00:00 List-Id: > > Let's look at the facts (as written in the newsgroups): > > You proclaimed that you do not program as a profession. > You proclaimed that you have not written a serious project in Ada. > > Yet you proclaim that you know best for a language in which you have not > spent a serious effort to understand and appreciate. I asked you how you > were qualified to determine when use clause are clutter. and you failed to > answer that important question. Since few of your argument are supportable, > I ask you again. What are your qualification to comment on clutter in Ada? > > *** Ada is not like C++. And he seems to be convinced that C++'s semantics and syntax is what made it popular. The first thing that made C/C++ ever worth looking at is that it was free with UNIX (Sure Unix wasn't free, but C++ was included, just as Basic was included with DOS). So All Unix, Mimix, and the rest of the gang users woudl go the C way, and DOS users went the BASIC way because it was included with the OS. *** When I first learned C/C++ back in school. We were a class of 35 students. Out of those 35 students (ranging from different programming backgrounds and some introduced to programming with C and C++)., 28 of them wonder what the hell the { and } were doing there, thinking they were typoes or something. When they were explained that it was C's start and end of a contruct, and they did understand what that meant, they said "how lazy can you get?" they weren't overwhelmed by the genius who decided to put those symbols to start and end a construct or multiple lined If statement or switch case. But it was freely available so most of them dealt with the { and }. The other 7 people dealt with it cause it was a low level language and they liked that feature, not the syntax, the capacity to access low level system calls. There was 2 other classes that just like mine started in C/C++ and with a couple student difference, it was pretty much the same numbers, the majority weren't pleased with the syntax, but it was free so they dealt with it, basically. and back then, languages cost a pretty penny to buy at the stores. *** My take on this is that if Ada would have been bundled with Unix instead of C, well C wouldn't be what it is today. First people used C because it was freely available, the other people used C because it was being used by others, that's how I explain my "monkey see monkey do" theory. Last time I didn't mention C being freely available to start the big wheel turning, Marin put me back on track with this ;-), it was the first reason. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com