Re: Ada syntax questions

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Andreas ZEURCHER" <ZUERCHER_Andreas@outlook.com> wrote in message 
news:bfaef8db-8f57-4a06-b2b4-be091bbfbd11n@googlegroups.com...
.
>Ada's inexpressiveness of imprecision of vagueness of misrepresenting
>design intent in this regard (of inability to compile-time enforce purity 
>of subroutines) ...

Which Ada? Ada 202x has Global aspects specifically for this purpose, and 
they are compile-time enforced. Methinks are you simply looking to troll Ada 
rather than any serious intent.

There's no implementation of Global yet, sadly. Hopefully coming soon.

                                    Randy.




 is clearly not abstraction.



  It is mere self-imposed blindness, ignoring the purity-enforcement topic 
altogether.  Assembly language and Ada have the same inability to overtly 
express and enforce a declaration of FP-purity.  Other languages have a pure 
keyword or equivalent for subroutines (i.e., functions, procedures, lambdas, 
coroutines, generators) to overtly express compile-time-enforced purity of 
the subroutine not making modifications to any data outside of its parameter 
data and callstack-based transient data.  Clearly when a programming 
language (i.e., Ada) and assembly language share the same lack of feature, 
they are the more-primitive.  Clearly when other pure-keyword-equipped 
programming languages can facilitate & enforce a higher civilization to 
capture the finer points of a mathematical description of the problem domain 
via a rule-declaration & compile-time enforcement that assembly language 
lacks, they are higher-order and less primitive.  There is no valid 
definition of "higher-order programming language" that permits assembly 
language's lack of a pure keyword (or equivalent purity-enforcement 
mechanism) to be a higher-order language than, say, Scala with a pure 
keyword.  Dmitry, your line of reasoning here of what constitutes a 
higher-order language is preposterous!