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!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Successor Language Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:12:22 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <5e86db65-84b9-4b5b-9aea-427a658b5ae7@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CvkHMVp693S8Z+lk11jyqg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Content-Language: en-US Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52849 Date: 2018-06-02T10:12:22+02:00 List-Id: On 2018-06-02 06:43, Shark8 wrote: > It occurs to me that in order to design a successor to Ada, there’s not merely one language that ought to be defined — but five — and the reason is that Ada is several languages all at once: there’s a language for generics, a language for proofs [SPARK], low-level hardware, and a language for tasking in addition to the Ada that maps to “normal” programming languages. > One of the frustrations about Ada as-it-is is that there is a lot that seems like it could be “folded together”, things like (eg) all the Ada.[Wide_[Wide_]]Strings packages. Or, some sort of mechanism for [explicitly] showing the relationships between types. > In order to do that we would need some sort of meta-language, wherein all the rest of the languages (ideally both syntactic and semantic) could be defined. > > (1) The Meta language > (2) The Generic Language > (3) The Concurrent/Parallelism language > (4) The Proving language [SPARK] > (5) The HW/Representation language > > ---------- > Your thoughts? You forgot: (6) The language of type declarations As for #1, that is possible to do, but then you will have just one more language on top of others. You cannot fuse meta- and object languages. What one can do is to completely throw away #2 and merge reduced #5 with #6. P.S. I don't understand this push for a new language. There are only few mistakes made in Ada with cannot be worked around. And there are problems unresolved on the theoretical level, like handling MD. A new language solves nothing unless being conceptually new. Languages created in recent 30 years perfectly illustrate this thesis. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de