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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Clubley Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Five Years After Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:14:58 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <942235344.537649945.074508.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <288039467.538377555.666858.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <35c275b0-27fb-45b6-b043-18cae6f32d4c@googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:14:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a2343960e57084818796debfb60b2fb3"; logging-data="13224"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q9K5Q7R/VNxbohY4aeX2NgHfBMNm8QTA=" User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (VMS/Multinet) Cancel-Lock: sha1:j1Y5VYZDPZNfM6uTF870Q4shSII= Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50124 Date: 2018-01-25T00:14:58+00:00 List-Id: On 2018-01-24, Lucretia wrote: > On Wednesday, 24 January 2018 13:50:20 UTC, Simon Clubley wrote: > >> Going the other way, a subset of Ada might be useful as well. >> >> There's serious potential for a good small language that could serve >> as an easily implemented C language replacement. It's possible that >> a subset of Ada with just the core features implemented and hence >> without vast amounts of required runtime library support could >> serve that purpose. >> >> Think of something that had the kind of functionality of a beefed up >> version of Oberon with all of the Ada type safety features imported >> into it for example. > > True but what features? With Ada, you need generics to be able to do anything > due to the strictness. Would this new Oberon/Ada/C inspired language need > generics? > > What other features would be required? I'd definitely go with ranged types at > least, I like OO, I never got to grips with functional, but due to current > hypetrains, people would want at least first class functions. What about > pointers? > Ranged types (and pointers, but only Ada style pointers) would be absolutely mandatory. Of course, that then raises the question of runtime exceptions in some environments... (Maybe the exceptions could be local to the current source file only). Generics are an interesting one. The focus in my mind is on keeping any required runtime support for language features to an absolute minimum. It's possible to do more in the compiler front end provided it didn't require massive amounts of design work and coding to implement specific functionality. The point would be to keep the language (and hence the compiler and runtime) lightweight but still have a better language than C. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world