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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-11 14:01:37 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it? Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: <9q25ec0248o@drn.newsguy.com> <9q421v0bbg@drn.newsguy.com> <9q4a37$npd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4e59018lm@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1002834096 14857 129.241.83.82 (11 Oct 2001 21:01:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:01:36 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.2 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14328 Date: 2001-10-11T21:01:36+00:00 List-Id: On 11 Oct 2001 08:34:01 -0700, Robert* @ wrote: > > Languages get changed all the time. If a language does not adopt it dies. > > Ada itself changed. we had Ada83, then came Ada95 to add OO features becuase > that what was needed to keep Ada moving along with the current needs of > software. > > C changed, C++ came from C to add OO to it. > > Fortran changed. now we have fortran 90. > > COBOL changed. > > Java is being changed to add generics to it. > > may be the word change is troubling, may the word improve is better. > > The point is, if a langauge does not adopt and improve with time, it will be > left behind, and people will go use (what is seen as) more modern languages. You are arguing; Ada has to change syntax as the languages X, Y and Z have done this. How can you claim that C -> C++ was a syntax change? How can you say that the change in any of the language above (with the exeption of COBOL which I do not know) was motivated by a wish for changing the syntax? :-) As fas as I know the changes were because new methology was added, like OO. I have to use Fortran 77 from time to time, and even as painful as its syntax is I do not want a Fortran 78 that has only changed some syntax aspects and thus break compability with all the available Fortran 77 source the project has. Ada 95 on the other hand has a beautiful and clear syntax which I like very much. I like to read letters and numbers to a bunch of dots, brackets, arrows etc... I understand that people from the C(++) and likes doesn't at first like the somewhat more verbose syntax. I remember I was not liking the Ada syntax at first as I thought it was like Pascals (we had to use pascal at the university and I didn't like it as it was a strict language where you still could crash the computer due to the use of pointers.), but as I looked more at Ada source code I noticed that it was so easy to read it and I found soon to prefer it to the C(++) syntax. Syntax like ++ -- *= etc is junk which only leads to error in your programs. If writing: Counter := Counter + 1; is too long to write then simply make a macro in you editor so that you can write: Counter++; and it automatically expands it into the line above, or write a preprocessor that can translate your code. Doing stuff like: if (++Counter == Max) { ... is IMHO pure stupidity if you ever want to be able to read your source code. As for the .method notation there is a very good example in the link I posted earlier. So I hope Ada won't change syntax and at least not to one that is worse than it currently has. Preben Randhol