Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X

["Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>]

On 4/12/2014 4:38 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> In Julia, the way I understand it, when defining a function
>> with some signature, then a compiled instance of this function
>> is made for all the possible primitive types (int16, int32,
>> real32, real64, etc...)
>
> Is made by whom?
>

If you mean in implementation, it is the by
the "just-in-time (JIT) compilation, implemented using LLVM"

The actual language is designed in MIT.

>> and when the program is run,
>> the run-time automatically dispatches to the correct matching
>> function based on the argument used at time the call is made.
>

> Really? What is the "correct matching" function of int16/real32? Can I have
> real_bounded_interval_64? What would be int16/real_bounded_interval_64? Who
> does linear system equation resolution function for int16?
>

 From http://julia.readthedocs.org/en/latest/manual/introduction/ it says

"The ability to define function behavior across
many combinations of argument types via multiple dispatch"
.....
"While the casual programmer need not explicitly
use types or multiple dispatch, they are the core
unifying features of Julia: functions are defined on
different combinations of argument types, and applied
by dispatching to the most specific matching definition."

It seems to be strongly typed language, but
in dynamic sense, (when running the program, one finds
their errors) and not at compile time.

I am no expert in Julia, I just build it on Linux and played
with it a little, since it has syntax that is close to
Matlab in some sense. The above link talks more about
the design of the language itself.

I only mentioned it, since dynamic languages seems to be
the trend these days, and this was a good example.

> The idea that there exist "primitive" and "non-primitive" types is garbage.
> The idea that any operation is applicable to any type is garbage.
>
>> Those good old fashioned, strong static type checking
>> at compile time computer languages, seem like, well, old
>> fashioned these days.
>
> If even members of ARG seem not to believe in merits of strong typing or
> whatever typing...
>

Yes, strong static typing is a good thing.

--Nasser