Re: Ideas for Ada 200X

[Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org>]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> Consider this: the Ada95 language is already large and complex. Is

Yes, and it does not need to get into a C++ "beauty" contest. What I
find great is that the language is clear, not ambigiuos (at least not
compared to other languages), well defined syntax. So even if it *is* a
huge language, this is not a problem. I didn't understand why the "Ada
is a huge language" was presented by others as a bad thing, until I
thought that what if C was as large as Adar? In that case I think it
would be a problem, but for Ada's case it is a strength. However we do
not need to make Ada into a huge C by adding a lot of ambigious
syntactic sugar because it makes for better make-up when standing next
to other, at the moment, more popular languages. It is better to iron
out the quirks and make improvements where it matters and to introduce
real and useful additions to the language to keep up with time. However,
I do not think the initial design goals/requirements should be tossed.

I didn't start to like Ada because it looked like C or C++, but because
it made things more clear and safe. That's when the joy came back.

-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
                 �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�