Re: ada without ada libraries?

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

Le Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:47:26 +0100, Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> a écrit:

> Le 09/02/2012 12:08, Gautier write-only a écrit :
>> Interesting debate: theoretically, I would support fully Yannick.
>
> Frankly I'm more thinking alike Dmitry.

With something to add? Frankly, I don't see why to have unused stuff  
around when what's needed is precisely defined, and why equally focusing  
on operation and construct which are irrelevant for a domain and the ones  
which are relevant.

Just think about a calculator which could accept complex formula and  
repeat the calculation with different variable assignations (a simple and  
easy example). You can do it, indeed, in plain Ada and the interface  
language may be Ada source compiled or interpreted by an Ada compiler or  
interpreter. Why doing so? isn't it simpler to build an Ada application  
and give it the specially designed interface which is a specific language?

Can you please, on this example basis, explain why plain and direct Ada  
would be better?

I wonder what kind of use cases each of us are thinking about. Probably  
far away from each others…

Sorry, I enjoy Ada, but when people assert it's good for every thing, I  
can't buy it, and was still not convinced. Or else, please, give a  
concrete example (from the above basis or another).

About Dmitry's example of using Ada overloaded operators in place of  
Prolog's specific language: what added value?

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University