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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,84bf0ec36cf20893,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-13 21:52:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: James Ross Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.65.182.86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1021351911 ST000 65.65.182.86 (Tue, 14 May 2002 00:51:51 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:51:51 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: TSU[@I_A\S@GRV@[_H]D]_HBWB]^PCPDLXUNNHLIWIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 04:51:51 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23993 Date: 2002-05-14T04:51:51+00:00 List-Id: We have JavaScript and VBScript ... And then there is Perl, Python, ... etc. If someone where to create a type-less and interpreted variant of the Ada language, that for all practical purposes was Ada syntax / rules without the strong typing -- would that be a useful or worthwhile thing to do? Or would it be just obfuscating what Ada is all about? JR