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: a07f3367d7,9fda87b69cc476dd
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.152.115.41 with SMTP id jl9mr15146lab.6.1349942727705;
        Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q10ni65082620wif.0!nntp.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!216.40.29.245.MISMATCH!novia!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Do really Ada give you a camel when you expected a horse?
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 05:29:27 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.wlshbdhsule2fv@douda-yannick>
References: <op.wlse87ecule2fv@douda-yannick>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nWiat4OlZzcvWrCC1SPxQg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.02 (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: 2012-10-07T05:29:27+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Sun, 07 Oct 2012 04:44:57 +0200, Yannick Duch=C3=AAne (Hibou57)  =

<yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a =C3=A9crit:
> Note: I am not posting this as an easy criticism about Lua in an Ada  =

> place ; and there's no bad intentions from them with this sentence,  =

> which starts in such way it's clear it should not be taken literally (=
if  =

> all criticisms could be as funny as this one=E2=80=A6).

Moreover, this paper is not that bad, and contains a clever remark:

     Everyone that works with programming languages knows how easy
     it is for people to start "religious wars" about the subject.
     An interesting characteristic of those wars is that, usually,
     the more mundane the subject, the hotter the discussion. For
     instance, people get much more excited discussing semicolons
     than discussing higher-order functions.

I agree with this.

However, I don't agree with their later arguments (later after the first=
  =

quote) about =E2=80=9Ccommittee languages=E2=80=9D and the issues they f=
eel to see with  =

designing prior to implementing. As an example, if =E2=80=9Cnot null=E2=80=
=9D was part of  =

Ada since the beginning, there would be a cleaner syntax for it, a =E2=80=
=9Cnot  =

null=E2=80=9D by default, which would be more close to the model authors=
 surely  =

have in mind ; a more complex example would be with interface types and =
 =

tagged types. Things get cleaner when designed the sooner, and before  =

implemented.

-- =

=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