From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada syntax questions Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:58:51 -0600 Organization: JSA Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <5fdbde31$0$6455$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <86im8ylnj4.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <5fdde913$0$3238$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <7a72951a-5a0c-42d6-ad30-357a43883b6fn@googlegroups.com> <7ecb50e0-2da8-475f-8a6b-ffb51aa195fcn@googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 00:58:52 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226"; logging-data="9969"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:60920 List-Id: "Andreas ZEURCHER" 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!