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: a07f3367d7,23c0de5a42cf667e X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT packages in Linux distributions Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:06:31 +0200 Organization: Ada At Home Message-ID: References: <87mxw9x7no.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <16bz9kvbqa8y9$.155ntpwpwl29d.dlg@40tude.net> <4be97bea$0$2966$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <4be98123$0$27617$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <4be9814d$0$27617$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <4be99568$0$2950$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: EFpv4lnpRyjbMhM0po550g.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.53 (Win32) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11520 Date: 2010-05-11T20:06:31+02:00 List-Id: Le Tue, 11 May 2010 19:35:43 +0200, Pascal Obry a =C3=A9= crit: > Eiffel in contrast is far more easier to program, but well the > constraints (pre/post conditions, invariants) are only checked at > runtime. Problems will be found when this part of the code is run. > > I cannot say I prefer one or the other. I've stopped programming in > Eiffel long time ago now. Both are targeting different level of safety= > and security to me. > > I can say that my second best/preferred language is Eiffel. It is a > clean language, well designed that encourage good programming. > > Pascal. I remember I had the idea to leave Eiffel for one main first reason : it= s = lack in the basic types area. The set of basic type was (I say =E2=80=9C= was=E2=80=9D, as I = don't know if the Eiffel ISO standard has evolved since) too much = restricted and there was no way to create proper new ones. There was a = good reason to that : Eiffel is far from low level ; it is unlikely you = = will be able to conceive a device driver with Eiffel. I'm not pointing that to say Eiffel is not nice because of that exact = point ; this is just a matter of requirement. That said, as long as there are some fault tolerance and as long as low = = level is not involved, it is a nice one, which as you said, may give you= = some good ideas and good inspirations ;) Further more, there was a plan = = from Bertrand Meyer (do not have the reference any more, sorry) to prom= ote = Eiffel as a language for the web platform (I mean client side, that is, = = browsers). If this would have been a success, we may actually have Eiffe= l = instead of JavaScript for web applications. Eiffel would have been well suited to this area : semantic favorable to = = interpretation and execution of remote stuff (no pointers to method, jus= t = references, which can mean Anything on the other side), clean enough, = *accessible enough*, promoting some good though for peoples willing to = receive these. -- = pragma Asset ? Is that true ? Waaww... great