Re: subprogram must not be deeper than access type

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:05:57 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
>> Yes, and that's what Functional Languages do. I believe Ada could  
>> benefit from
>> more FP (it already has something of FP).
>
> How so?
What I miss is currying (thinking in term of currying, help the design  
too), tail recursion optimization (not part of language this one, but  
could be advised), and package interface working more like structure  
signature.

But there are already some great parts of FP in Ada. Value semantic is  
often enforced, we now have conditional expressions (Ada 2012) and Ada  
constants are really constants at the level of scope execution (same kind  
of constants as in FP, not the same as in C/C++).

There was Agol60 and Pascal, FP was a missing influence of Ada.

But FP is neither an Holy Grail. Example: Design By Contract (™), is not  
FP. Other example: in real life, references are really required for  
performances, even if hidden inside package implementation (no one enjoy  
copying a whole structure to update that structure, it's a waste of  
performance).


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
Java: Write once, Never revisit