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 10.66.251.6 with SMTP id zg6mr287639pac.28.1366153042516; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:57:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: bp1ni1201pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!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: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:57:20 -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> <8bj2k30k7i19.w7ehsldwbf7x.dlg@40tude.net> <1o34nhpfuy6yl$.2orlukd1elr7.dlg@40tude.net> <144bgnv8rdks7$.1o76z1eh196ks$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1366153041 31885 69.95.181.76 (16 Apr 2013 22:57:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:57:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2013-04-16T17:57:20-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:144bgnv8rdks7$.1o76z1eh196ks$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:41:46 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: ... >>> You missing the main point that whatever difference Unbounded_String and >>> String may have, it is not a semantic difference. Both are different >>> implementations of the same thing. They are mixed right from the start. >> >> Representation is an integral part of semantics. > > I don't understand why you are using Ada then. There are lots of great > languages which pursue the principle that representation is semantics, > beginning with C. Representation is not semantics -- it's *part* of semantics -- there are other components to semantics as well, which languages like C ignore. But you're ignoring the part of semantics that is associated with representation, and that's just as bad. One type for one purpose. If you think you need different representations for a type, you're clearly mixing purposes and that's bad. Anyway, I use Ada because it forces me to write precisely and it complains about any abuse of types. And because it has the most sensible syntax of any language that I've been seriously exposed to. And most of all, because it automatically includes lots of dynamic checks to prevent mistakes from spreading (I hate debugging). The latter two are the most important, and they are only tangentially involved with types. Randy.