Re: What's stopping you from using Ada for your next commercial project?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:35:06 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> There will be other algorithms if the paradigm really change.
>
>> I tried to look at some “tutorials” last year (ouch, and they dare to  
>> name
>> this, “tutorials”!)… I gave up.
>
> New concepts are difficult to gasp. Someone posted a link to an article
> about a Lisp clone proposed! (:-))
>
>> Two-states based computer are light years simpler than that.
>
> Proponents of abacus would say same about modern computers.
Don't know that Abacus, will search the web about it. I though “seems  
there is no elementary component, looks likes everything is a big complex  
system which cannot be broken down to be understood”. May be I just faced  
too much low level documents or bad tutorials, who know (and I am really  
bad at most branch of mathematics)

But there will still be troubles about what to do with all of these  
nowadays computer (even sadly famous Africa's bin will not be big enough).  
So I still hope boolean computers will have a long life ahead, at least  
for that single reason.

> Language is not a physical system. You can change anything you wanted,  
> you
> just have to wish it.
Life is not a physical system neither, its only based on a physical  
system. So I maintain ability of life to face an environment and ability  
of a language paradigm to face an environment, are comparable. If you are  
interested in the topic, you should know what life is, could be expressed  
in some other abstract ways, getting ride of carbon and water. The  
physical system is just the starting point, this does characterize the  
system, which is abstract.

>> Could you tell more about “keeping it backward compatible is only  
>> possible
>> by a big structural change” ?
>
> Per generalization: you express obsolete features in terms of new ones.
That would mean to keep the syntax and the same meaning assigned to  
existing syntactic construct and redefine the core concepts of the  
language only ? I feel this may be feasible with greater separation of  
both. We may have three documents instead of two : an Ada Abstract Syntax  
and Paradigm reference document, and Ada Concrete Syntax standard document  
and and Ada Rational more or less formal document discussing both. To keep  
it simple, is that something like that you are thinking about ?


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

“I am fluent in ASCII” [Warren 2010]