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: 
 buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada design bug or GNAT bug?
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:42:58 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <mmc5oi$5bg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <yo94phsbcvht$.1bktwe2qoqntt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <mm58b5$9k0$1@loke.gir.dk> <4lrj5zz2u2z.u8x9cf7xzic6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <mm9h84$5n8$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <d4629c07-4005-4bd3-8fa6-85d088fb83c9@googlegroups.com>
 <58f64fa9-7d0b-44dd-870c-77d9afcb82c4@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:41:40 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="a3855fbfe1a666be9aefba0563039ed5";
 logging-data="5488"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XxfYISaohrrhc1M1l7YzyQ/HPjkQ9uug="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
In-Reply-To: <58f64fa9-7d0b-44dd-870c-77d9afcb82c4@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LkfomuSWiaxJUFTNefswgx6GAFQ=
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193744
Date: 2015-06-23T10:42:58-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Shark8 wrote :
>
> Yes, anonymous accesses ARE pretty bad.
> But this does bring up the question: what missteps have been made in Ada's design?

In addition to those listed by Shark8, I would add:

* Combining the concepts of ":=" and "=": private types have both by default,
and limited types have neither.

* Private parts, rather than full views in the body.

* Anonymous types.

* Features for programming by extension (tagged types and child pkgs that extend
their parents).

* Introducing protected types with arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on
what they can do, rather than formalizing the passive-task concept.

And probably others I can't think of right now.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"When Bell Labs were invited to evaluate C against the DoD requirements
[for Ada], they said that there was no chance of C meeting the
requirements of readability, safety, etc. for which we were striving,
and that it should not even be on the list of evaluated languages."
William Whitaker
116