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: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!weretis.net!feeder3.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chuck" <chuckmacdonald@nospam.me>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:07:33 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ijl2b9$ilf$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: 
 <1ee1a434-4048-48f6-9f5e-d8126bebb808@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <b1f0b153-dc79-4b3c-a936-68723e76a4db@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <jbejuuszjy3y.vyllayr73kh0$.dlg@40tude.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="Nvo31E/p3EKlT4bDI5+9FA";
	logging-data="19119"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wctYKpgSz4GqX9LgZHfDm"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AhnWWop+HSR/dHQXHsFzYf51mQI=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17393
Date: 2011-02-18T00:07:33-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:31:52 -0800 (PST), Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>
>> In Ada, the two named access types are incompatible with one another;
>> they have no structural equivalence.
>
> The flaw here is structural equivalence and, more generally, type
> inference. Not everybody agree that type inference is bad. I do
> believe that it is.

How so? If it means a more robust type system, great. If it means lazy 
programmers writing 'auto' everywhere instead of documenting what is 
going on, then it's decidedly a BIG loss (uncomprehensible code is 
useless code). Personally, when I think of  'auto'-likeness, I think of 
Visual Basic, and "real" programmers don't need or like that.

>
> Note that Ada 95/2005/201x keep on moving towards more inference.

Internally that would be good (though I don't know compiler internals 
enough to know that it isn't already saturated there and that you are 
talking then strictly of programmerland).