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!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!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: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:24:24 +0200 Organization: Ada At Home Message-ID: References: <16bz9kvbqa8y9$.155ntpwpwl29d.dlg@40tude.net> <4be97bea$0$2966$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <1p87qdlnjbufg.127laayhrw9x3$.dlg@40tude.net> <4j73xhgimt6r$.pu55kne2p2w5$.dlg@40tude.net> <4c09047d$0$6976$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: gPTBNfhtfsEpv8wDIvwlLw.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:12253 Date: 2010-06-04T16:24:24+02:00 List-Id: Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:49:49 +0200, Georg Bauhaus = a =C3=A9crit: > Coding invariables makes me think of a tricky(?) question: > What should a language look like that naturally makes the programmer > think before coding, and take his/her time? What would its > features and offerings have to be? Undoubtedly, I would think to start with a VDM like (whose theory I know= a = bit, however never practiced, sorry) I don't mean Ada is not nice for that (it has many things which suggest = = you to think about the logic and structure of things before to start, an= d = SPARK completes it has it give logic), I just mean this has some = additional things, which make it mandatory (based on what I read about i= t = some 15 years ago). Do you agree with that idea ? My advocating: it starts with high level expressions [*], which are not = = even compilable (don't even think about such a word as =E2=80=9Ccoding=E2= =80=9D in this = context). Then you go down to implementation step by step, and each step= = has to be proved (the kind of proof it uses is comparable in some way to= = the ones of SPARK). There is no other road than, first, know what you wa= nt = (very important), then, know why it can be implemented this/that way = (requirement: intuitions, as with any logic/mathematical proof). [*] Please, don't tell me UML do the same, although it may be nice for = communication (another area). > One inescapable ingredient of any popular PL seems to be magic at the > level of syntax, if this is how programmers most visibly see themselve= s > express themselves. Can't force them to wear boring ties. Eiffel's > syntax appears to be expanding ... I did not understood this sentence: =E2=80=9CEiffel's syntax appears to = be = expanding ...=E2=80=9D What you were you to mean ? > Maybe some Cobol style modules headers listing major internal > and external parts to be manipulated might help? Can you give a short example of what it would look like for ones who don= 't = know COBOL ? Are you to complete your list of thoughts about programming languages in= = the large ? (I remember you talked about it if I'm not wrong) -- = There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check. --# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho; --# assert Ada; -- i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion -- and start with new conclusion as premise.