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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.stack.nl!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jacob Sparre Andersen news" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:35:01 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kmbohm$elb$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <op.wv8jh1c1ule2fv@cardamome> <op.wwbvqzkeule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwnp2zkrule2fv@cardamome> <u3jaslg5kca7.1gk5ds3d4sx2y$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwnsmtteule2fv@cardamome> <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwny5jerule2fv@cardamome> <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwn4oak8ule2fv@cardamome> <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1367958902 15019 69.95.181.76 (7 May 2013 20:35:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 20:35:02 +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-Original-Bytes: 3163
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181487
Date: 2013-05-07T15:35:01-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> I thought about it, but this is far larger than one-man project and there
> is too much things which nobody did before and nobody knows how to do.
> Before doing this one should clearly understand it, and before
> understanding it there should be a serious discussion about it. And before
> that starts there should be a desire in the community to fix the language,
> which is clearly absent. Ada 2012 became a patchwork under which one can
> barely see its original ideas.

I don't think there is any point in "fixing" Ada anymore than there is a 
point in "fixing" C++ or Java or (pick any other widely used language here). 
The language is "good enough" for most purposes, and people are going to 
have to see clear advantages to a new language before they would move.

OTOH, that doesn't mean that a complete overhaul of Ada (but keeping most of 
its core principles intact) wouldn't be a good idea. The main thing is that 
the result most certainly would not be Ada, but rather would be a new 
language *inspired by* Ada. (That might even be a good thing, as it would 
allow Ada-haters to take an unbiased look without realizing Ada was 
involved.) If such a language had clear advantages over Ada 2012 (and few or 
no clear disadvanatges), it would be likely that many Ada users would make 
the switch.

But obviously this is a tough road; the language has to be designed and a 
reference implementation built before it is likely that there would be many 
customers. Whether such a model could be managed is hard to say, especially 
in terms of funding.

                              Randy.