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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a27bd01ed18da21f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.226.10 with SMTP id ro10mr1773823pbc.6.1328806047965;
        Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni5518pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada compiler using a M2 compiler as back-end
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:47:26 +0100
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.v9e7lcpzule2fv@douda-yannick>
References: <abb720e9-fdc2-4a02-9318-982eec5fdf12@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <op.v9cgeu00ule2fv@douda-yannick> <jgtvq7$oec$1@dont-email.me>
 <op.v9c77qr1ule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <272f9fe6-084c-4283-9803-80ef6d21e738@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: fLpVuVo6AZx9Xe9YP2dkPw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.61 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Date: 2012-02-09T17:47:26+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:02:43 +0100, Ludovic Brenta  =

<ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a =C3=A9crit:
> Actually this is a rendition of a post here on comp.lang.ada 16 years
> ago:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.modula3/browse_thread/thread/=
f07b9c63c348974b/6c76347a49e42768?lnk=3Dgst&q=3DAda+versus+Modula3#6c763=
47a49e42768
>
> The entire thread is interesting.
Yes, interesting (still readin).

An interesting quote among other interesting replies.

> When reviewing design tradeoffs of any artifact, I think it is alwaysa=
  =

> good question to ask "At what cost?". I think we should also askthis  =

> question in review of Ada95 and Modula-3's designs. At what costsdo th=
ey  =

> achieve their results?If a design is simple, we must ask, at what cost=
  =

> have the designersachieved this? Does the design miss some important  =

> uses to be expectedfrom the artifact? Does the design specify enough?I=
f  =

> a design incorporates many features, then we must ask again, atwhat co=
st  =

> was this achieved? How many pages are the specifications?How compliant=
  =

> are the implementations to the full specification?  Isthe design  =

> overspecified?Looking at the design for Modula-3, I'd say that the  =

> designers aimedat simplicity, safety, and completeness in *that order*=
.  =

> From what Iknow about Ada, its design tends to follow the opposite ord=
er.

He finished with this, but when he say =E2=80=9Csimpler=E2=80=9D, keep i=
n mind what he  =

said above about the cost and order of aspects.

> I thinkthe difference in the languages reflects this point more than  =

> anythingelse: Modula-3 achieves Ada95's (or C++'s) power with a  =

> definitionthat is about *an order of magnitude* simpler.

-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers=
ity