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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-20 20:00:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexander E. Kopilovich" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:51:00 +0400 (MSD) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1082516252 49575 212.85.156.195 (21 Apr 2004 02:57:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:57:32 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from "Dmitry A. Kazakov" at Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:12:33 +0200 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7372 Date: 2004-04-21T06:51:00+04:00 Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > there is a difference in consequences. If you swallow a rooten food then > >you probably (although not certainly) will be poisoned and fall ill, maybe > >severely ill and even may die. But MS Word crash, however unpleasant, very > >rarely has serious consequences. Most probably it will just annoy you for > >several minutes or, perhaps, spoil some of your time - perhaps one or two > >hours at most. Cases when a document - and not just any document, but an > >important document was irrecoverably lost by a crash of MS Word - are very > >rare, even exotic. > > It is up to law and judges to decide, that is the point. I don't know whether there are many unemployed judges and lawyers in Germany, but I think that, for example, in USA it isn't so - they have enough problems associated with software today, without embracing too closely the field of liability that you pursue. Not all problems, irregularities and disagreements are for the law and judges. If you aren't in hardcore police state, of course... and I don't know enough about the Sharia law, but I'll certainly quit programming if it will be required by law to cut the right hand (or even a finger) of a programmer who made an error, which remained in released product. There is another kind of system which applies to software where it is reasonable, and which does not involve law and judges into specifics and details of software: certification. The law may require that some kinds of software - used in specific categories of applications or in specific modes or environments etc. - must be certified, that is, approved with provision of appropriate documents, by organizations or persons that are appointed or licensed for this purpose by designated government's agencies or representative bodies. If a certification system is established then the law and judges will only control proper application of that system. And then it will be up to the lawmakers of your country, whether they choose to pursue maximal local safety by total certification or they will prefer some compromise; but at least the judicial system will not be damaged this way. > >> Sorry, I just could not imagine how Ada can defy general notion of > >> software. > > > >But could you imagine how Ada can DEFINE general notion of software? > >I must confess that this is unimaginable for me - how any programming language > >can DEFINE general notion of software. > > Any language defines the subject of talking. A loud shot, but a miss - because we don't (and can't) talk about general notion of software in Ada. > any programming language, Ada, C++, etc define, form, > influence the notion of software. It does not define or form, but at most contribute something to those notion. And yes - it influences, but not much in most cases... yes, there were notable exceptions - the languages, which substantially influences the matter - first trio - Fortran, Algol, COBOL, then LISP, Basic, Simula-67, SmallTalk, then C and Pascal, then C++ and Visual Basic. (This is not the list of my favorite languages - for example, I certainly like APL much better that Basic, but I think that for now Basic influences the general notion of software much more than APL; and I do not speak here about theoretical understanding, therefore I did not include, for example, CLU in this list; and this it the cut for the current moment and not an outlook for the whole history - that's why I did not include, for example, PL/I). If we lower the barrier then we should, perhaps, include SNOBOL and/or Perl (or. perhaps, intermediate AWK) and possibly SQL. > >Well, I'll explain how Ada DEFIES general notion of software. Ada does that > >in two ways: > > > >First, Ada expects dealing with detailed specifics of the problem, and detests > >generalized approaches that ignore that specifics without prior consideration. > > Please elaborate this. If you mean generic programming then Ada > supports it by having both generics and class-wides. Surely in Ada generalization constructs are present and perfectly usable - Ada has nothing against reasonable generalization. But note that all these constructs aren't too user-friendly, they never work automatically or implicitly. You have to instantiate generics explicitly - you have to type (and then read) an additional line, which is a burden. Not a big burden, but nevertheless it works against careless generalizations. Similarly for class-wide programming - you have to type 'Class explicitly and then take some consequences. Again. not a big burgen, but most programmers will take even small, but systematic burden only for a good reason - so it works against careless and unreasonable generalizations. And the same goes all the way with Ada. Just try to increase your speed and run carelessly with the banner "I'm creating software!" in your hand - you'll immediatiately meet various obstacles and annoyances, which you'll never meet in C and you'll never meet major part of them in C++. While you are close to the problem domain and reflect it precisely in your code, Ada do her best for you. But if you try to take a vague (carelessly generalized) look to your problem then Ada frowns at you and makes you unhappy. > >Second, Ada does not recognize software as an application domain that has its > >own specifics - domain-specific features, primitives and structures. (The fact > >that Ada somehow recognizes several other languages is largely irrelevant to > >the issue.) > > I don't understand this. Should it mean that, say, ClearCase cannot be > written in Ada? I'm not familiar with ClearCase, I'm only vaguely aware of it, but I think it doesn't matter here. Certainly, ClearCase as well as any other user-mode program/system can be written in Ada. And it can be written in Perl or, say, Visual Basic also. Are there Ada features that will help make the ClearCase better (comparing with making it with C++ or Perl or Visual Basic)? Are there particularly suitable notations, well-thought useful attributes or anything else particularly good for this specific purpose? I think no, there aren't such features in Ada. Compare that with the situation when you are creating a numeric (that is, purely computational) application or developing real-time controller. For these application domains, which Ada fully recognizes, she has plently of particularly good features. That said, I must remark that I certainly don't think that the ClearCase is a good representative for software as hypothetical application domain. And don't ask me for better representative - I will not provide it, at least this time (you may try yourself, of course). When I said that Ada does not recognize software as an application domain I only stated a fact, and did not imply that Ada designers are stupid or blind regarding this matter. > I see, you would enjoy experimental software dealing with your > bank account, Although I have none (remember, I live in Russia, and I'm neither former parteigenosse nor "new Russian" nor a bandit, and I'm not affiliated with either kind, so this shouldn't be too surprising), nevertheless from time to time I'm asked privately (by a friend who works for a bank here) for some general advice regarding banking software - usually concerning problems with either experimental software or migration to new version. Well, I do not enjoy those stories, sometimes I even sighed after that - there are too much stupidity, incompetence and indifference... and note that many "procedures" are supposedly present, but they are too often either ignored or avoided or distorted or simply aren't understood or aren't known by relevant personnel or are blindly copied from foreign ones without necessary adaptation/customization. > controlling the nuclear reactor 30 miles away, Interesting, how far you think is the Sosnovyi Bor power plant with 4 big nuclear reactors from south-east of Saint-Petersburg(Russia) where I live? I can tell you that I still don't see too much danger from it - mostly because there are still enough scientific power in nearby institutes. Certainly, that scientific power and correspondily indirect control is gradually weaking in some important aspects, but I think that former surplus was so large that we still have enough. At the same time I believe that stopping that plant would create a whole gallery of disasters caused directly or indirectly by deficit of electricity. > managing the air bag in your car. I never had a car (and also never had driving license), so it shouldn't be too surprizing that I don't know what is exactly an air bag. Perhaps I know something about it - if it is something traditional and not relatively recent invention (as I studied car construction in my childhood), but just don't know that English term. So, not knowing what that air bag is and which is its role, I can't estimate consequences of its malfunction. Alexander Kopilovich aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia