Re: Manifesto against Vector

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0405122123.23661b16@posting.google.com...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:<9cadnQ6PhYWg4z_dRVn-sA@megapath.net>...
...
> > > except that it is shorter, cleaner, less error prone, and easier to
> > > read.
> >
> > No good. Too much useless verbiage, and it depends on an equivalence.
> > Equivalences almost never work; we avoid them if at all possible. (The
ARG
> > spends a lot of time fixing problems caused by equivalences that
aren't -
> > for instance, truncating Stream_IO files).
>
> Too much "useless verbiage"? Where? Are you replying to *my* post, or
> did you get mixed up with some other post? I am totally baffled by
> your reply. My simple proposal *eliminates* "useless verbiage". Oh,
> and it eliminates "useless verbiage" too. Did I mention it eliminates
> "useless verbiage"?

The wording has too much useless verbiage. The part I left above (in
particular) does not belong in RM wording - the RM is not trying to sell
anyone on the benefits of a feature. (The AI needs to do that, but not the
wording.)

...
> > In any case, we discussed something like 4 problems with this proposal
in
> > the past. None of them are insurmountable, but they simply aren't worth
the
> > effort (which is substantial). And since the the Ada 2005 effort is
> > substantially voluteer, the effort does matter.
>
> I'd like to know what the 4 problems are, but I'll save you the time
> and just ask for one non-trivial problem with having "with/use x;"
> mean "with x; use x;" It's trivial text substitution and nothing else.

Yes, you do seem to have trouble remembering previous discussions. I suggest
you go back and read them. One example is that "with A.B" means "with A;
with A.B" while "use A.B" means just that; so a "simple text substitution"
is inconsistent and likely to be confusing.

> > In any case, no syntax tweaks are going to have the slightest impact on
> > Ada's use/popularity. If people can adjust to gibberish syntax like Lisp
and
> > C++, they certainly can handle a few quirks in Ada. Bigger issues will
make
> > the difference, and few, if any of them have anything to do with the
> > language standard.
>
> What I am suggesting is a trivial freebie that can only help.

This is a trivial freebie that encourages horrible Ada style. That's why
some of us (like me) would oppose it even if it *was* free, which it is not.

> It's like the difference between a long and short URL for a website. No,
> having a short URL is not the most important factor in the popularity
> of a website, but you better believe it is a factor. Convenience is
> always important, and people who deny that are rarely successful
> selling anything. Why? Because they don't give a darn about their
> customer.

Ada has never been about *convenience*. It is about readability, and it
about correct programs. "Use" clauses in general are a hindrance to both of
those goals (although they can help readability in limited circumstances).
Because they bring in *everything* from a package, it is really only safe to
use them on the smallest or most common things -- or to limit their
effectiveness to a small area (which of course is certainly not going to be
in a context clause).

Tools (such as IDEs) provide whatever convenience features are needed.
(That's true in C++ and Java as well). If Ada has a problem, it's not enough
good tools. Wasting time messing with the syntax is not going to help that.

In any case, I've spend far more time on this topic already than it ever has
desired. I'm not going to spend any more -- nice talking to you again.

                  Randy.


                       Randy.