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,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-08 20:18:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!oleane.net!oleane!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 07:31:04 +0300 (MSK) 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 1073621905 2583 80.67.180.195 (9 Jan 2004 04:18:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 04:18:25 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from Robert A Duff at 08 Jan 2004 11:46:58 -0500 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 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:4244 Date: 2004-01-09T07:31:04+03:00 Robert A Duff wrote: > > I suppose you will not claim that there is absolutely no difference (except > > syntax) between functional and procedural programming languages. > > No, I don't claim that, although at some level they are equivalent; Certainly - at some level they are, but from another angle they aren't. > you can convert a procedural program into a functional one by adding > a lot of parameter passing. Yes... but I'd put it in other words: by wasting a lot of time and effort -;) > My point was just that Ada's functions are *not* functions in the > functional programming sense. Certainly yes, they aren't. > Calling them "function" is therefore misleading. No. It may be misleading for little schoolgirls and for computer science students, pity for them. but for nobody else. The main association for notion of function is presence of explicit single result. All other is secondary and may vary according to local conventions. Note that the word "function" was used (before programming emerged) outside of mathematics (or physics) quite heavily, and those functions certainly weren't "pure". And that is what I'd like to say: the notion of function in programming inherits from both mathematical and non-mathematical meanings, and is used for reflecting them both. > I'm not suggesting "another" name. I'm suggesting that a *single* name > would suffice, where Ada has three names: function, procedure, > subprogram. So try "subprogram" as that single name, and perhaps you'll see the result better then if you imagine "procedure" there. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia