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: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Musing on defining attributes and the ability to define an "abstract type X"-interface. Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:02:05 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <9617c73b-e23e-405b-8544-4d17e7e3ad61@googlegroups.com> <28512bf1-0c2c-400f-a24f-cc7e0eb8a02d@googlegroups.com> <87h8y67trd.fsf@jacob-sparre.dk> <36a1a83d-f3d7-4e3c-827d-addeadc28ccc@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: MajGvm9MbNtGBKE7r8NgYA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Language: en-US Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47669 Date: 2017-08-10T09:02:05+02:00 List-Id: On 2017-08-10 01:22, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message > news:omebk4$1115$1@gioia.aioe.org... >> On 2017-08-09 02:44, Randy Brukardt wrote: > ... >>> Experience is that the volunteers start to disappear if one is not >>> working on new, important features for the language. >> >> Reworking falling apart type system is important even if people do not >> feel it so. They may need more than 3 language iterations before it >> changes... > > I don't think most of us see anything wrong with the type system. And I > suspect that anyone who does has a different answer than anyone else. > Building consensus would be very difficult. It is not that sort of wrongness. There is nothing wrong with rational numbers. But you cannot build functional analysis without extending it to reals. >>> My main point to the OP is to find that high priority problem, *then* >>> explain how a language design change would help to fix it. >> >> Sure, except that language is a thing that you could not improve by small >> incremental changes. The smaller the increment the worse it goes. This >> method does not work. > > I don't disagree, but that's why languages are periodically effectively > replaced by newer languages. Is it so? Should it be so? I don't see how major new languages are so much better. The reasons why new languages appear are not technical, IMO. I would like to see an example of a language being replaced. >> The problems as seen from the developer's perspective are different. We >> see the language differently. Consistency and regularity is more important >> for us than minor features or performance. These features may solve some >> "real" problem, but the developer does not see it, if the feature comes >> out of the blue buried somewhere in the reference manual. There must be >> higher language logic behind to make feature a solution. This means >> knowing how to apply, knowing what are the effects and pitfalls to the >> design. > > You (you meaning developers in general here) do care a lot about > performance; if Ada programs for Ada 2020 performed more like Python > programs than C programs, there would be a major outcry. I mean minor performance penalties, not something catastrophic. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de