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: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.68.136.104 with SMTP id pz8mr4117460pbb.3.1363383830927; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:43:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: q9ni17884pba.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!newsfeed1.swip.net!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:47 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <8klywqh2pf$.1f949flc1xeia.dlg@40tude.net> <513f6e2f$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <513faaf7$0$6626$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <51408e81$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1xqmd3386hvns.1og1uql2cgnuf$.dlg@40tude.net> <5140b812$0$6575$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <13y3efy877tjl$.5yuu230sknnq$.dlg@40tude.net> <1xsmzl7alqflb$.oz1qkrleisa7$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1363383830 18752 69.95.181.76 (15 Mar 2013 21:43:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:43:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Received-Bytes: 4816 Date: 2013-03-15T16:43:47-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:1xsmzl7alqflb$.oz1qkrleisa7$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:51:11 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > >> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message >> news:13y3efy877tjl$.5yuu230sknnq$.dlg@40tude.net... >>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:01:27 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: >>> >>>> You have many interesting ideas that would be far better served if you >>>> described them in Ada-terms. >>> >>> How do you describe tagged types in Ada 83 terms? >> >> Why would I want to? > > You insisted on that claiming that Ada can be only discussed in Ada-terms. You didn't answer the question. Why would you want to describe something from a recent version of the language in terms of an obsolete one? On top of which, when anyone says Ada without qualification, that means Ada 2012 (as that is the current version of Ada). I'm not likely to talk about Ada 83 as there is no point (of course, for many things, the language version doesn't matter). ... >> Another way to put it is that raw science (as you called it) is >> essentially >> irrelevant unless it can be applied to engineering. After all, *ideas* >> are >> worthless; only execution has value in today's world. I care about the >> execution (that is the usability of the design) of Ada, not how it fits >> into >> someone's theory of how things should be. > > Then you must have wrong understanding of science. It is actually the > reverse: if the theory does not explain facts, it is wrong. Huh? I'm contending that the theory is irrelevant (much like religion -- and it shares a lot of characteristics with that). That's because you can't use it to design a useful programming language, only to pigeon-hole and/or take potshots at it after the fact. That's not useful or helpful. One could say that about a lot of basic theories. Knowledge of thermodynamics has little to do with designing an engine; you need a lot of knowledge about other things to do that, and thermodynamics is *way* down on the list of things that matter. After all those rules are very simple to paraphrase: "You can't win the game. You can't break even. And you can't quit the game." And you can't do much even knowing that. > Ada's subtype as defined by RM is a fact to explain (and to predict > consequences of the choices made). The theory does it quite well. The rant > about how Ada's RM names its subtypes is absolutely irrelevant. But no one cares, because such matching has no relevance to anything: it's not going to change the design of Ada (compatibility concerns would prevent that in any case) and nothing about it would help you be a better Ada programmer (especially as the terminology clash makes it close to impossible to think about one and make sense of the other). So it is a waste of time. Randy.