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: 103376,508516c114ade8e1
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.222.71 with SMTP id qk7mr983788pbc.1.1328781309755;
        Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:55:09 -0800 (PST)
X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.181.72
Path: 
 wr5ni4438pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!nntpfeed.proxad.net!78.192.181.72.MISMATCH!gegeweb.42!gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!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 without ada libraries?
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:55:08 +0100
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.v9eoh6szule2fv@douda-yannick>
References: <eecf117d-e86f-45d0-b6ed-50931273e858@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
 <82mx8tttx7.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <kx86q1tkvfcd$.fmbdm6c01k6i.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ba3906c0-e832-455e-b236-3dd1ad65c79b@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>
 <120f2efrm73fc$.mi1m9kwbbkes$.dlg@40tude.net>
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: 2012-02-09T10:55:08+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:34:45 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  =

<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a =C3=A9crit:
> No, the point is not to re-implement LISP, bash, perl, you name it, in=
  =

> Ada.
> The point is to throw it away. The advantage of using Ada is Ada itsel=
f.

Such an assertion seems silly to me (with apologize). No language at all=
,  =

not even Ada, could be an universal model for everything. There are plac=
e  =

for numerous DSL (read Domain Specific Language), and some scripting  =

languages, like LISP or derivatives, or logic programming languages, are=
 a  =

kind of.

However, as Ada is good at procedural stuff, type and interface safety a=
nd  =

implementation, this make sense to implement DSL interpreters with Ada (=
a  =

compiler or interpreter for a language X, need not be implemented with X=
  =

itself).

Or else, can you reasonably demonstrate your assertion ?

-- =

=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