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 10.68.226.10 with SMTP id ro10mr1415130pbc.6.1328794923996; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:42:03 -0800 (PST) Path: wr5ni5032pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada without ada libraries? Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:42:02 +0100 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <82mx8tttx7.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <120f2efrm73fc$.mi1m9kwbbkes$.dlg@40tude.net> <1o71uiwmoiunb.bkjz8c54rcbl.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: 2012-02-09T14:42:02+01:00 List-Id: Le Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:45:31 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov = a =C3=A9crit: >> No language at all, >> not even Ada, could be an universal model for everything. > > Since when a language became a model? Always been for me. I see Ada as a language providing a set of low level= = models. All languages comes with their own model, even natural language = = (people are just not aware of that fact). > If you want to be serious in pushing your argument, you have to show h= ow > and why the domain's specific fails to fit into a strongly typed, > imperative, OO framework. First is readability. A DSL provide a specific set of vocabulary and a = syntax which, if well designed, emphase things where needed. Using Ada f= or = some things, would be like using assembly instead of Ada. With Ada you = don't have to care about setting=E2=80=91up stack frame and cleaning it = on return = nor you have to care about register vs memory allocation. The same way, = = some domain don't have to care about private/public, limited/non=E2=80=91= limited, = local/library=E2=80=91level. You could provide some package holding the = = functionnalities of a DSL, a attempt to right what a DSL do in a simple = = Ada program, but you will miss conciness and specifically designed conte= xt = which come with a DSL and help to focus on the DSL domain only. > The only debatable position here is actually declarative vs. imperativ= e. > But it won't fly with scripting languages anyway. It precisely do. >> and some scripting >> languages, like LISP or derivatives, or logic programming languages, = = >> are a >> kind of. > > ... mess. Either you use it badly, or it is just not well suited to you in = particular. Does not imply this cannot suite well someones else. What would be a real mess, would be an attempt to express Prolog clauses= = with Ada arrays (arrays with anonymous types, of course; don't even thin= k = about named array sub=E2=80=91types). Would be bloated with no added val= ue for = what matters to Prolog users. You would nearly have to create a new = derived type for each clauses if you wanted it to be real Ada. Similar comments could apply with others, including some as common as SQ= L = is. This does not mean all are good or perfect (SQL syntax is not good to me= ), = I just mean trying to replace all with Ada would make things worst. -- = =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