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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,c08a7609345f4e5 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Limited use for limited with? Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:59:05 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Message-ID: References: <853314bc-0f79-435f-86a5-d7bcdd610731@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <36e886fa-b272-461f-bf86-a6b18366b64f@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <1eug9v5h5mf8d$.ud00hrz48lyr.dlg@40tude.net> <67044906-dacc-4526-b3f6-27e5323ab8fc@n3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <12chb4kbqt9ln$.zumsv1z9hqvk$.dlg@40tude.net> <292dd0bd-1fc4-4715-bb70-7655d0dc04eb@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <09c36bd6-edfa-42bf-8f33-e91b0a9b0737@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <1f38791b-a579-49ed-839c-e6ff3867de76@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <4cb57156$0$7654$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1287104347 22066 69.95.181.76 (15 Oct 2010 00:59:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:59:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feed.ac-versailles.fr!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15511 Date: 2010-10-14T19:59:05-05:00 List-Id: "Georg Bauhaus" wrote in message news:4cb57156$0$7654$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net... > On 10/13/10 4:09 AM, Randy Brukardt wrote: ... > Is it realistic to assume that such a large, multi-organization, > changing system can be modeled with "known specific handler" > in mind? Without pointers, but scope based? Ada would be a lousy choice for such a system. Most of Ada's advantages are predicated on compile-time checking of correctness, and that is impossible by definition for a dynamically changing system without a defined structure. You could use Ada if you have very strong interfaces (and I don't mean interfaces the language feature but simply the totality of the type definitions, subprogram profiles and the like) for the plug-ins. But that still requires a lot more organization than you are postulating here. I wouldn't argue that there are such systems -- any widely-used OS would be similar. (Although even there the interfaces and interactions could be much better defined than in your thought experiment). Just because they exist doesn't mean that Ada is well-suited to program them. Randy.