Re: was Re: Ada / C++ comparison paper anymore

[Patrick Hohmeyer <pi3_1415926536@yahoo.ca>]

Brian Rogoff wrote :

> To which I reply "Don't do that!".
> 
> It's quite easy to create similar contrived bug scenarios in Ada without
> automatic instantiation of generics using overloading, and, in fact, many
> very smart language designers believe that overloading is awful. I
> disagree, and think that by applying a bit of intelligence and good taste
> overloading makes programs more readable.
> 
> To avoid this particular problem, I would avoid the automatic
> instantiation by not with-ing the generic unit and instantiating the
> subprograms that I want elsewhere and with-ing those. Pretty simple, huh?
> 

But this is the C way of doing things :
Let's give the programmer all the possibilities
and it's up to him to use them wisely.

Ada is based on the concept that the language should prevent bugs,
even if this limits the programmer sometimes.

I dont say that the C way is wrong,
but if I want a language that gives me all the possibilities
I wont use Ada, not even a modified Ada, but I'll use C.

Ada should not try to become C with words instead of brackets,
but it should stay with it's "fail-fast" philosophy.
If Ada wants to compete it has to offer something that C hasn't,
and that's the safety of catching of most bugs either at compilation
or at runtime at the line they are produced.
And this even if the programmer is unwise.

So IMO, whatever we change in Ada0x it shouldn't reduce the
ability of the compiler to catch bugs.

-- 
Patrick Hohmeyer