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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,b6d862eabdeb1fc4 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet 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: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used? Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:38:21 +0200 Organization: Ada At Home Message-ID: References: <0e88de66-128c-48fd-9b9f-fdb4357f318a@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <2o8vq76hpv1m.vs7m2beo23nz.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nOz3PrZI1lJ+TrIP91FCvA.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:12325 Date: 2010-06-06T14:38:21+02:00 List-Id: Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:45:48 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov = a =C3=A9crit: > Less complex and more fragile, because of premature decisions to meet.= = > The > package Generic_Complex_Types requires the type Real to instantiate. Y= ou > have to define this type, range, precision etc. Later on, if the choic= e > might appear wrong, you will have a huge problem, if the instance is = > widely > used. A typical solution is to pass the instance as a parameter of = > another > generics. Welcome to the Hell... > Dynamic polymorphism, abstract types, interface inheritance, constrain= ing > (discriminants), static functions. I guess for Complex you would like constraining discriminants. The funny part is that I actually see generics as a way to define ADT. > Probably yes. Macro is a macro, even if you call it generics or templa= te. You can pass anything to macro. Generics are safer at least for this = reason. > Yes. The language of generics regarding its formal parameters: OK. I understand what you have in mind. > I do. If you'd make them provable you would need not to test. The prob= lem > is that for generics provability is much harder than for the object > language. The same question again. Why not to concentrate on the core = Ada > and integrate SPARK there? Would be great! :-) (would have to make SPARK a bit more predictable by = = the way... I have some idea in the area of SPARK, but this would make it= = different than what it actually is, and I feel this would be a lonesome = = story) Finally we end up in this oooold story about Ada, the most famous Ada = issue : right at the beginning, someones were already suggesting to focu= s = on a more core language, to better focus on what is the most relevant. > Some, but as I said Ada drifts towards less checks. Really ? I don't feel so much and don't believe most interested parties = = will allow it. The introduction of DbC in the Ada 2012 language itself, even goes the = opposite way. Isn't it ? -- = 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.