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 10.180.188.52 with SMTP id fx20mr103701wic.3.1366082164816; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: p18ni69727wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.teledata-fn.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: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:15:14 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <1gnmajx2fdjju.1bo28xwmzt1nr.dlg@40tude.net> <3gv2jwc95otm.pl2aahsh9ox8.dlg@40tude.net> <1gkxiwepaxvtt$.u3ly33rbwthf.dlg@40tude.net> <1fmcdkj58brky.bjedt0pr39cd$.dlg@40tude.net> <1bj564vat3q1j$.1s4d00rlzx4ux$.dlg@40tude.net> <4hzv51v872q2$.1imijbwd7heqm$.dlg@40tude.net> <1htu9idmcci7x.1vr9eafeivqah$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1365632119 7751 69.95.181.76 (10 Apr 2013 22:15:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:15:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2013-04-10T17:15:14-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:dqljoxvn36my.xkv88psqukp9$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:45:24 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > >> Stefan has it right (even if Ada doesn't): Universal integer is a >> pseudo-type that only should have an existence to the compiler. > > This is what happens when theories face reality. You are ready to declare > Ada design wrong in order to save the theory. (:-)) Yup. Because it is, and the theory works well. :-) I certainly don't believe Ada is perfect, and some parts of it are screwed up and much more complex than necessary. I'd love to make an Ada-like language that had fewer warts. But blowing up its models and starting over would certainly introduce a new set of warts because of not understanding all of the issues very well. Staying as close as possible to the existing models lets us build on the existing experience (and for Ada itself, is absolutely necessary). > As an exercise compare how much of Ada design is wrong according to your > theory vs. mine? So far as I know, run-time universals and the occassional mixed type operation is it. I'd dump some features of Ada as insufficiently valuable if starting from scratch (visibility in nested units would get a makeover), but the design would be largely the same. You seem to want to completely dump the Ada design in favor of something based on multi-methods. Multi-methods are the same as weak typing to me, I don't want to see them explicitly or implicitly. Randy.