Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it?

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 05/22/2015 01:04 PM, kalvin.news@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, one of Ada's problem is that it is not allowed to call a
> compiler an Ada compiler if it implements only a subset of the language and
> the compiler has not beed certified. Please correct me if I am wrong here. I
> would consider a subset of Ada quite attractive if it provided same
> functionality as a C99, providing Ada's strong type checking and better
> grammar etc. - and if the compiler would be available even for the smaller
> microcontrollers for free (in the similar manner as C is available).

Weren't you the one railing against people using out-of-date information a
couple of paragraphs earlier in your post? When Ada was a trademark of the DoD,
you could only use the term for a compiler that implemented the full language
and had been certified. At the time of Ada 95 the DoD gave up the trademark, so
there is no authority preventing you from misusing the name. GNAT, for example,
by default is not an Ada compiler.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I'll get broads up here like you wouldn't believe.
Swingers. Freaks. Nymphomaniacs. Dental hygienists."
Play It Again, Sam
125