Why not combine Ada and C++?

Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Mike Meng]

Hi, I am a proficient C++ programmer, who also admire Ada's
reliability and power. After tasted a little Ada, I must admit that I
like it. I alway say to my friends, though C++ is a great language,
it's population is just because it's *C*++. If the most pop PL in
mid-1990s was Ada, the whole life would be much easier.

But the history is history. Though I know Ada's syntax is much clearer
and readable than C++'s, nowadays, most of programmers are familiar
with C-family languages' syntax. Some of my friends don't like Ada
just because it's not case-sensitive!

I'm an SCJP (Sun's Certificated Java Programmer), I clearly remember
what the teacher said, "Java is created with C++'s syntax and
Smalltalk's semantic". I always thought, if there is a language with
C++ syntax and Ada95's semantic, it must be very pop!

I don't know much about Ada, so I can't figure out how is the
feasibility. Please comment it.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3105e154.0110150021.32ff5426@posting.google.com>, mengyana@legend.com (Mike Meng) writes:

> Hi, I am a proficient C++ programmer, who also admire Ada's
> reliability and power. After tasted a little Ada, I must admit that I
> like it. I alway say to my friends, though C++ is a great language,
> it's population is just because it's *C*++. If the most pop PL in
> mid-1990s was Ada, the whole life would be much easier.
> 
> But the history is history. Though I know Ada's syntax is much clearer
> and readable than C++'s, nowadays, most of programmers are familiar
> with C-family languages' syntax. Some of my friends don't like Ada
> just because it's not case-sensitive!
> 
> I'm an SCJP (Sun's Certificated Java Programmer), I clearly remember
> what the teacher said, "Java is created with C++'s syntax and
> Smalltalk's semantic". I always thought, if there is a language with
> C++ syntax and Ada95's semantic, it must be very pop!

If that were a method of making Ada more widely adopted (my presumption
of what you mean by "pop"), it would defeat certain advantages some of
us see in Ada (e.g., using clear words rather than short abbreviations).
Ada is intended to be a reader's language, rather than a writer's language,
among other reasons to facilitate maintenance 20 years later.  (I have
some code of my own that is 13 years old that I have been maintaining
this month.)

Popularity is not sufficiently important to give up strengths of the
language.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Robert*]

 
You can write Ada using many of C/C++ synatx.

Use a C preprocessor.

1. create a .h file, and do this:
#define {  BEGIN
#define }  END
#define [  (
#define ]  )
#define =  :=
#define == =
etc...

then, in your .c file, the following code:

if( a==0 )
{
   b = 0;
   d[2] = 4;
}

when run via the preprocessor only, will come out as

if( a = 0 )
BEGIN
   b := 0;
   d(2) := 4;
END

Then use the above as input to Ada compiler.

(I am missing a THEN in the above, but you get the idea, tweek the .h
file more to get it in :)

btw, the above practise is not a good idea to do of course.

   

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Stephen Cole]

I think the idea is a good one. I don't like the caselessness of Ada either.
It makes feel MSDOSish rather than a modern language. Why is caselessness
still concidered important in this day and age when memory is so cheap. Ada
seems to suffer from rules that seem to be relevant to implementation
difficulties rather than giving the programmer a consistent/simple view of
the program implementation space. But I am just a beginner in Ada so maybe I
am wrong. But I don't think so.

But there is a lot about Ada to like. I think the combination of Ada & C++
would be a 80/20 split in favour of Ada. One of the things I DO NOT want to
see lost is its extremely strong type checking. Thats beautifully
implemented.

And popularity is important. If people are being switched off Ada for some
reason, you have to wonder why! Maybe an Ada2001 is needed which panders to
user whims rather than completeness. You get the high integrity bunch
imposing limitations on the language as it is (like Sparc Ada), so the need
for high integrity from the start could be softened.

Just make a language which can be tighted of loosened depending upon user
needs. Using parsers or maybe even built in pragmas. Thinking about C++ as a
Users language and Ada Problem solving complete language could maybe provide
a road forward for a language which *seems* to be loosing the popularity
stakes.

The sooner the problem is recognised (especially by the Ada hard heads) the
sooner a future can be built that tries to stem the sloppiness that
languages like C++ unintentionally may be allowing. If C++ were combined
with Ada and/or #pragma allowed, just think of the interest the then C++
hard heads would have in leaning about tightening up their coding skills to
produce high integrity software! At the moment Ada (to them) is just out
there and of no relevance.

At the moment the jump from C++ to Ada is too much to bother with for a lot
of people. I was one of them until I was given time and told to learn it. If
this gap was bridged more, it would be healthy for everyone I think.




"Mike Meng" <mengyana@legend.com> wrote in message
news:3105e154.0110150021.32ff5426@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I am a proficient C++ programmer, who also admire Ada's
> reliability and power. After tasted a little Ada, I must admit that I
> like it. I alway say to my friends, though C++ is a great language,
> it's population is just because it's *C*++. If the most pop PL in
> mid-1990s was Ada, the whole life would be much easier.
>
> But the history is history. Though I know Ada's syntax is much clearer
> and readable than C++'s, nowadays, most of programmers are familiar
> with C-family languages' syntax. Some of my friends don't like Ada
> just because it's not case-sensitive!
>
> I'm an SCJP (Sun's Certificated Java Programmer), I clearly remember
> what the teacher said, "Java is created with C++'s syntax and
> Smalltalk's semantic". I always thought, if there is a language with
> C++ syntax and Ada95's semantic, it must be very pop!
>
> I don't know much about Ada, so I can't figure out how is the
> feasibility. Please comment it.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Marin David Condic]

Case sensitivity is one of those debates that is never going to be settled
simply because people have their own irrational preferences and there are
plusses and minuses on either side to justify them. The case sensitivity
issue has been argued here many times before.

Personally, I like case insensitivity since the meaning of a word is not
(generally) changed by the character case in which it is represented. Hence,
to introduce case sensitivity would be to make it far easier to make stupid
errors in coding or in reading of code. Something like "This_Object" versus
"This_object" could far too easily be tripped over in code. (Fortunately,
the compiler would complain if one tried to declare two such objects in the
same scope, but with case sensitivity, someone could easily get away with
it.)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Stephen Cole" <s_k_cole@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9qeg5r$266$1@trog.dera.gov.uk...
> I think the idea is a good one. I don't like the caselessness of Ada
either.
> It makes feel MSDOSish rather than a modern language. Why is caselessness
> still concidered important in this day and age when memory is so cheap.
Ada
> seems to suffer from rules that seem to be relevant to implementation
> difficulties rather than giving the programmer a consistent/simple view of
> the program implementation space. But I am just a beginner in Ada so maybe
I
> am wrong. But I don't think so.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Alfred Hilscher]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Case sensitivity is one of those debates that is never going to be settled
> simply because people have their own irrational preferences and there are
> plusses and minuses on either side to justify them. 

Yes.

> Personally, I like case insensitivity since the meaning of a word is not
> (generally) changed by the character case in which it is represented. Hence,
> to introduce case sensitivity would be to make it far easier to make stupid
> errors in coding or in reading of code. Something like "This_Object" versus
> "This_object" could far too easily be tripped over in code. (Fortunately,
> the compiler would complain if one tried to declare two such objects in the
> same scope, but with case sensitivity, someone could easily get away with
> it.)

Is it different to the problems you can get with (for example)
"Caselessness" and "Caseless_ness" ?

I think every programmer should have the possibility to do his work in
his own way.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Marin David Condic]

Nothing in Ada stops you from using Upper and Lower case characters in
identifiers, reserved words, etc. Whatever style you like is just fine.
(*pretend* that its case sensitive if you like :-) Its just that character
case won't have any impact on meaning. If you're depending on character case
having an impact on meaning, then this is inherently risky. It means you
want to be able to use identifiers like This_Object and This_object in the
same scope and have them mean different things. Or have "begin" and "Begin"
with one being the reserved word and one being some other identifier. (risky
and confusing in my mind...) If you say "No, I'd never want to have two
identifiers distinguished only by character case", then what's the problem?
Type them in any case you like.

To make the language case sensitive would be, in some ways, a restriction on
every programmer to do it some specific way. If, for example, you like your
reserved words to be in UPPER CASE, you wouldn't be able to do so if they
were mandated to be in lower case. As it is now, you can do it any way that
suits your personal style.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Alfred Hilscher" <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de> wrote in message
news:3BCB0C10.636D110E@icn.siemens.de...
>
> I think every programmer should have the possibility to do his work in
> his own way.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Stephen Cole]

Much as I hate to admit it, you are probably right. Case sensitivity is
dangerous. I just *FEEL* limited by it for some reason. I like the Ada
behaviour of being case insensitive but allowing you to write your source in
any case. So Ada wins again over C++. I am not an obsessive Ada fan (I guess
I like supporting underdogs), but it DOES have a lot of things right.

As for combining C++ with Ada....I still think the idea of maybe providing a
stepping stone between the two would be a good idea. Ada IS loosing
popularity because it SEEMS expensive, clumsy and difficult. Its not! It
just feels a bit cryptic when you start. It just demands what is right! But
Ada is still losing the popularity game!

It is down to PR and FEELINGS. I am convinced of it. Because once you've
learnt it, you find C/C++ very loose and flabby and not tight and efficient.
This issue needs to be addressed otherwise Ada will go the way of Betamax
and all the other good guys in the engineering world.

To sum it up, Ada feels "dictatorial" as a language, whereas C/C++ are
"free". And even if Ada is a "good dictator" it is still a "dictator" and
does not allow looseness which will allow people to feel the language and so
use the language as a way of getting to grips with a problem which needs to
be solved.

After all, a language is *supposed* to be a human to machine interface, and
if it doesn't take into account feelings (which is a natural human trait)
then it is not going to succeed.

Even if feelings are a bad thing to have when programming. We still cart
them with us.

A bit more psycology in program development/design and less logic. We are
human. We may have a HAL9000 (off 2001 the space odyssea) in the end! And
not just clunky windows and WYSIWYGs!

Just dreaming.....

"Stephen Cole" <s_k_cole@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9qeg5r$266$1@trog.dera.gov.uk...
> I think the idea is a good one. I don't like the caselessness of Ada
either.
> It makes feel MSDOSish rather than a modern language. Why is caselessness
> still concidered important in this day and age when memory is so cheap.
Ada
> seems to suffer from rules that seem to be relevant to implementation
> difficulties rather than giving the programmer a consistent/simple view of
> the program implementation space. But I am just a beginner in Ada so maybe
I
> am wrong. But I don't think so.
>
> But there is a lot about Ada to like. I think the combination of Ada & C++
> would be a 80/20 split in favour of Ada. One of the things I DO NOT want
to
> see lost is its extremely strong type checking. Thats beautifully
> implemented.
>
> And popularity is important. If people are being switched off Ada for some
> reason, you have to wonder why! Maybe an Ada2001 is needed which panders
to
> user whims rather than completeness. You get the high integrity bunch
> imposing limitations on the language as it is (like Sparc Ada), so the
need
> for high integrity from the start could be softened.
>
> Just make a language which can be tighted of loosened depending upon user
> needs. Using parsers or maybe even built in pragmas. Thinking about C++ as
a
> Users language and Ada Problem solving complete language could maybe
provide
> a road forward for a language which *seems* to be loosing the popularity
> stakes.
>
> The sooner the problem is recognised (especially by the Ada hard heads)
the
> sooner a future can be built that tries to stem the sloppiness that
> languages like C++ unintentionally may be allowing. If C++ were combined
> with Ada and/or #pragma allowed, just think of the interest the then C++
> hard heads would have in leaning about tightening up their coding skills
to
> produce high integrity software! At the moment Ada (to them) is just out
> there and of no relevance.
>
> At the moment the jump from C++ to Ada is too much to bother with for a
lot
> of people. I was one of them until I was given time and told to learn it.
If
> this gap was bridged more, it would be healthy for everyone I think.
>

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[tmoran]

> To sum it up, Ada feels "dictatorial" as a language, whereas C/C++ are
> "free". And even if Ada is a "good dictator" it is still a "dictator" and
  I feel C is like my third grade teacher.  She accepted anything I wrote
with praise and encouragment, and did her best to understand what the
heck I meant.  Ada is more like fourth grade.  She wanted writing
that is clear, unambiguous, and can be understood by any reader.
  Another metaphor is that a C compiler is a relatively dumb tool, like a
hanger.  You can hang your shirt on it, or you could bend it and use it
to roast marshmallows.  An Ada compiler is like a gentleman's valet.  He
will give you a shirt, but his real value is that he can suggest "that
shirt doesn't work with that outfit, you ought to try a different one"
when you didn't even notice there was a problem.
> A bit more psycology in program development/design
  Where's the "human factors" research on what is good/bad for various
aspects of a programming languages?  Where's the market research on
how to sell a programming language?  :(

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Baugereau]

It may seems stupid, but I think such a language would benefit from C++
postfix notation.
Object.Method () insteand of Method (Object)

Thus you can chain methods calls more clearly (1) and you can benefit from a
better completion from your IDE (2).
1) Object.Method1().Method2() instead of Method2 (Method1 (Object))
2) Object.Meth* gives only methods that apply to Object whereas Meth*
doesn't have this information

Maybe Ada people think this is a non-issue, though.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Wes Groleau]

Stephen Cole wrote:
> It makes feel MSDOSish rather than a modern language. Why is caselessness
> still concidered important in this day and age when memory is so cheap. Ada
> seems to suffer from rules that seem to be relevant to implementation
> difficulties rather than giving the programmer a consistent/simple view of
> the program implementation space. But I am just a beginner in Ada so maybe I
> am wrong. But I don't think so.

You have it backwards.  Since processors became powerful enough
to handle case insensitivity (like forty years ago?), the _only_
justification for case sensitivity is backwards compatibility.

And, although Ada does make allowances for implementation
difficulties, it's main philosophy is that most programmers
should be spending most of their time thinking abstractions,
not implementation.

-- 
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <01c155a0$7dd31b80$1b7af2c3@akzvbymr>, fr.fabien@infonie.fr says...
>
>In my opinion, the drama of Ada is that it was not able to get
>out of the DoD or Air traffic control applications

That might indeed be an interesting drama. Fortunately, in the real world its
not true.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Wes Groleau]

Stephen Cole wrote:
> As for combining C++ with Ada....I still think the idea of maybe providing a
> stepping stone between the two would be a good idea. Ada IS loosing

Do you mean a language that looks like C but is safer?  Java.
Or a language that looks like Ada but is less safe? _____

-- 
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9qfdbk$lae$1@wanadoo.fr>, Baugereau says...
>
>It may seems stupid, but I think such a language would benefit from C++
>postfix notation.
>Object.Method () insteand of Method (Object)
>
>Thus you can chain methods calls more clearly (1) and you can benefit from a
>better completion from your IDE (2).
>1) Object.Method1().Method2() instead of Method2 (Method1 (Object))
>2) Object.Meth* gives only methods that apply to Object whereas Meth*
>doesn't have this information

<sigh> 
Not only has this issue been discussed to death here multiple times (answer?
Like most things in Ada, it was done for a reason.), but it is in the process of
being rehashed yet again in another thread. Please go read it before trying to
dredge the issue up yet again.

We now return you to your regularly-schdeduled flamewar, already in progress.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Robert*]

In article <9qf394$1rt$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin says...
>
 
> If you're depending on character case
>having an impact on meaning, then this is inherently risky. 


in some cases, case sensitivity can be very good.

for example, in Java, the convention is to use lower case first letter for
a name of a method. and Upper case first letter for a Class and interface
name, lower case all letters for a package name.

This is very usefull, becuase if you'r reading code, and you see an Upper case
first letter on an identifier, then you know without having to look aroud, that
the name represent a Class name. and the same for method names.

This means you can write

  Car car= new Car("buick");

and it is clear as a bird which is the type and which is the variable.
(In Ada, you have to add "_Type" to the type to try to distinguish things).

This is a convention, not enforced by the language, but it is so strong, that
any java programmer cought not doing it, will be immeadiatly taken out and
shot in clear day light without a question being asked :)

Myself, I prefer case sensitive. But it is not a very important feature, there
are more important things to look at first. But if I am designing a new
lang, i'd make case sensitive.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Wes Groleau]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>   I feel C is like my third grade teacher.  She accepted anything I wrote
> with praise and encouragment, and did her best to understand what the
> heck I meant.  Ada is more like fourth grade.  She wanted writing

So C is a 3GL and Ada is a 4GL ?  :-)

If those acronyms weren't already taken, I'd say
your analogy is apt but inaccurate--C is a 2GL
and Ada is a 6GL  (Java is the 4GL)

(No one has invented the 12GL yet)

:-)

-- 
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Adrian Knoth]

fr.fabien@infonie.fr wrote:

> The reason seems that there were no Ada libraries
> for stuff like GUI and ODBC and that to make a simple

It is important to use past tense, as you did. I feel very productive
with GtkAda and my PostgreSQL-binding, though it is a thick one and
though I also have to try two alternatives.

I want to point out to gnade, which is waiting for a closer look if
I could only find some time for it :) 

--- bite ----
The GNADE ODBC bindings are a thin Ada 95 binding to
ODBC.

The projects provides additionaly native bindings
to PostgreSQL and MySQL.
--- stop biting ---

> software you had to code by yourself a lot of stuff unlike VB , Java, or
> C++ where you have huge libraries to capitalize on.

Surely you won't include VB in a serious discussion about PLs.

As for myself I can ascertain my work with Ada helps me a lot
studying CS. The clear concept, the strong typeing and all the
professionality are wonderful.

I don't regard Ada as a programming language, it is a language for
software-engineering.

Just my $, and please consider your quoting :)

-- 
mail: adi@thur.de  	http://adi.thur.de	PGP: v2-key via keyserver

Wer _wirklich_ etwas zu verlieren hat, verwendet kein Windows. 
Zumindest nicht ein zweites Mal. (Robin S. Socha �ber "Desktop-Firewalls")

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Marin David Condic]

Similar cases have been given here before and been vigorously debated. I
personally would not program this way because of the easy misreading or
mistyping of "Car" vs "car" - and that's (one of the reasons) why Ada
doesn't do it that way. It is also just a naming convention that might not
get adhered to and might cause problems switching from one app to another or
one programmer's code to another. (Yes, I favor adherence to coding
conventions but they are difficult to enforce.) In a sense, it is
fundamentally no different than "Car" vs "Car_Type" or some similar
convention, so generally speaking, you can get the same effect with a
different style. (You'll find about as much religious fervor over the pro
_Type vs anti _Type adherents! :-)

As I said elsewhere, people are going to have preferences and there will be
good reasons on either side supporting what people prefer. Ada had to decide
to be either case sensitive or insensitive and either way it was going to
displease some segment of the population. It opted for insensitivity because
it was generally viewed to be the safer alternative - for a language heavily
concerned with avoiding errors. You give something up and you gain
something. At least it wasn't done for no reason at all and I think any
reasonable programmer can learn to work with it (and might discover that it
*does* avoid some collection of errors.)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Robert*@" <Robert_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9qfg4v02t20@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> in some cases, case sensitivity can be very good.
>
> for example, in Java, the convention is to use lower case first letter for
> a name of a method. and Upper case first letter for a Class and interface
> name, lower case all letters for a package name.
>
> This is very usefull, becuase if you'r reading code, and you see an Upper
case
> first letter on an identifier, then you know without having to look aroud,
that
> the name represent a Class name. and the same for method names.
>
> This means you can write
>
>   Car car= new Car("buick");
>
> and it is clear as a bird which is the type and which is the variable.
> (In Ada, you have to add "_Type" to the type to try to distinguish
things).
>
> This is a convention, not enforced by the language, but it is so strong,
that
> any java programmer cought not doing it, will be immeadiatly taken out and
> shot in clear day light without a question being asked :)
>
> Myself, I prefer case sensitive. But it is not a very important feature,
there
> are more important things to look at first. But if I am designing a new
> lang, i'd make case sensitive.
>

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Eric Merritt]

<fr.fabien@infonie.fr> wrote in message news:<01c155a0$7dd31b80$1b7af2c3@akzvbymr>...
> In my opinion, the drama of Ada is that it was not able to get
> out of the DoD or Air traffic control applications
> 
> The reason seems that there were no Ada libraries
> for stuff like GUI and ODBC and that to make a simple
> software you had to code by yourself a lot of stuff
> unlike VB , Java, or C++ where you have huge libraries to
> capitalize on.
> 
> FF

Please feel free to check out GNADE. GNADE is an odbc based library
for ada, a pretty good one too I might add. As for native gui, you are
right. There probably needs to be a native gui toolkit for ada. In the
interim we do have gtkAda that is not bad at all.

Eric

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[tmoran]

> The reason seems that there were no Ada libraries
> for stuff like GUI and ODBC and that to make a simple
> software you had to code by yourself a lot of stuff
> unlike VB , Java, or C++ where you have huge libraries to
> capitalize on.
  There's a substantial, commonly available, GUI etc library called
Windows, and several different Ada versions of its API, at varying
levels of abstraction, and even tools to create Ada versions of new
Windows libraries (eg Gnatcom).
Have you looked at www.adapower.com recently? at all?

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Jeffrey Carter]

"Robert*@" wrote:
> 
> In article <9qf394$1rt$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin says...
> >
> > If you're depending on character case
> >having an impact on meaning, then this is inherently risky.
> 
> in some cases, case sensitivity can be very good.
> 
> for example, in Java, the convention is to use lower case first letter for
> a name of a method. and Upper case first letter for a Class and interface
> name, lower case all letters for a package name.
> 
> This is very usefull, becuase if you'r reading code, and you see an Upper case
> first letter on an identifier, then you know without having to look aroud, that
> the name represent a Class name. and the same for method names.

When you come across code that does not adhere to this convention, you
are going to make incorrect assumptions about what it means. This is
what happens when you rely on something that is "inherently risky":
errors. Of course, there are those who enjoy spending weeks debugging
errors that a case-insensitive language would not allow.

-- 
Jeffrey Carter

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Martin Dowie]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:ZjHy7.30103$ev2.37026@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9qfdbk$lae$1@wanadoo.fr>, Baugereau says...
> >
> >It may seems stupid, but I think such a language would benefit from C++
> >postfix notation.
> >Object.Method () insteand of Method (Object)
> >
> >Thus you can chain methods calls more clearly (1) and you can benefit
from a
> >better completion from your IDE (2).
> >1) Object.Method1().Method2() instead of Method2 (Method1 (Object))
> >2) Object.Meth* gives only methods that apply to Object whereas Meth*
> >doesn't have this information
>
> <sigh>
> Not only has this issue been discussed to death here multiple times
(answer?
> Like most things in Ada, it was done for a reason.), but it is in the
process of
> being rehashed yet again in another thread. Please go read it before
trying to
> dredge the issue up yet again.
>
> We now return you to your regularly-schdeduled flamewar, already in
progress.

I has understood this 'syntactic sugar' was going to be included in Ada0Y,
anyone
know anything about that?

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Pascal Obry]

"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com> writes:

> I has understood this 'syntactic sugar' was going to be included in Ada0Y,
> anyone
> know anything about that?

I have post a reference to the AI some time ago. Have a look at the archive.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <01c15665$dc2e6c00$9b29e8d4@akzvbymr>, fr.fabien@infonie.fr says...
>Anyway concerning GUI in Ada you had the choice until recently between Claw
>and ... nothing else

Not true. The Win32 Ada bindings have been shipping with the public versions of
Gnat for years now. In addition, I was using Ada/TK bindings for GUI programming
back in '97, if I remember correctly. If you didn't mind spending money, there
have been X/Motif bindings floating around since back in the Ada 83 days.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <01c15665$dc2e6c00$9b29e8d4@akzvbymr>, <fr.fabien@infonie.fr> writes:

> Anyway concerning GUI in Ada you had the choice until recently between Claw
> and ... nothing else

To the best of my knowledge, Claw is only for Microsoft Windows.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Marin David Condic]

Its already changing if participation in this newsgroup counts for anything.
I've noticed a steady increase in the quantity of posts and the number of
regular/semi-regular posters we see here. A number of participants seem to
be from "across the pond" so Europe may end up the foster-parent of the US
DoD's abandoned baby.

Also most of us Ada-philes get a bit critical when we see the name spelled
"ADA" since it is, after all, a person's name - not an acronym.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


<fr.fabien@infonie.fr> wrote in message
news:01c15665$dc2e6c00$9b29e8d4@akzvbymr...
>
> But my feeling concerning ADA as of today October 2001 is that it is like
> the Concorde aircraft
> which means a technical success but a marketing flop
>
> My hope is that this situation will change

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[tmoran]

> > Anyway concerning GUI in Ada you had the choice until recently between Claw
> > and ... nothing else
>
> To the best of my knowledge, Claw is only for Microsoft Windows.
  Yes.  The original statement was:
> > Windows, and several different Ada versions of its API, at varying
> > levels of abstraction, and even tools to create Ada versions of new
  Tom Moran (one of the original Claw developers)

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Simon Wright]

Jeffrey Carter <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> writes:

> > This is very usefull, becuase if you'r reading code, and you see
> > an Upper case first letter on an identifier, then you know without
> > having to look aroud, that the name represent a Class name. and
> > the same for method names.
> 
> When you come across code that does not adhere to this convention,
> you are going to make incorrect assumptions about what it
> means. This is what happens when you rely on something that is
> "inherently risky": errors. Of course, there are those who enjoy
> spending weeks debugging errors that a case-insensitive language
> would not allow.

IIRC Smalltalk requires that Classes (and other globals) begin with a
capital, locals begin with a minuscule. At least there's no confusion
there!

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[AG]

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
news:x7v4row67z3.fsf@smaug.pushface.org...
> Jeffrey Carter <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> writes:
>
>
> IIRC Smalltalk requires that Classes (and other globals) begin with a
> capital, locals begin with a minuscule. At least there's no confusion
> there!

Sigh, really? There we go again... How come the "Classes" do begin
with the capitals (but not other globals) while other words don't?
Just how is it worse than the "C" convention of using capitals for  the
whole lot of constants? To reiterate a long-standing argument, how would
you like a compliler to make any sense as regards the difference between
(P/p)olish?  Not to mention that if I use an identifier caled "aBRacaDabra"
I wouldn't expect any other programmer to follow the same capitalization
rules. So, how is that for confusion?

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Hyman Rosen]

Wes Groleau wrote:

> the _only_ justification for case sensitivity is backwards compatibility.


Only for people who refuse to consider the possibility of any language 
but English. Modern programming languages and operating systems allow 
names to be written in any of the world's languages. For those languages 
which have case at all (and for those which have more than two), the 
rules for changing case are extremely locale-dependent, 
context-sensitive, and not necessarily character-for-character. Instead 
of trying to incorporate all of this knowledge into compilers and 
operating systems, I find it much more reasonable for them to simply use 
the sequence of characters which they have been given.

And as far as causing confusion, Ada already allows the same name to 
mean multiple things. Quoting from Barnes,

	type Colour is (Red, Amber, Green);
	type Stone is (Amber, Beryl, Quartz);

So when you see Amber in the code, you don't instantly know what it 
refers to - you have to examine the context. Reading it aloud doesn't 
help either. I fail to see why this is any different than allowing 
identifiers to differ only in case.

Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Richard Riehle]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> And as far as causing confusion, Ada already allows the same name to
> mean multiple things. Quoting from Barnes,
>
>         type Colour is (Red, Amber, Green);
>         type Stone is (Amber, Beryl, Quartz);
>
> So when you see Amber in the code, you don't instantly know what it
> refers to - you have to examine the context. Reading it aloud doesn't
> help either. I fail to see why this is any different than allowing
> identifiers to differ only in case.

Kinda true.  But the compiler will catch any potential ambiguities.   This is
the key point.  Ada is designed to detect inconsistencies, irregularities,
discontinuities, incongruencies, and unconfirmable constructs earlier in
the software development process than any other language.   One can certainly
perform little tricks to thwart this capability, but it requires some effort
because Ada goes out of its way to prevent you from doing it.

As to the example you cite,  we would disambiguate this for the compiler
using type qualification:   Colour'Amber       or Stone'Amber.   If we did
not, the compiler would reject our code.

Richard Riehle

RE: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Beard, Frank]

-----Original Message-----
From: Hyman Rosen [mailto:hyrosen@mail.com]

> And as far as causing confusion, Ada already allows the same name to 
> mean multiple things. Quoting from Barnes,
> 
>	type Colour is (Red, Amber, Green);
>	type Stone is (Amber, Beryl, Quartz);
>
> So when you see Amber in the code, you don't instantly know what it 
> refers to - you have to examine the context. Reading it aloud doesn't 
> help either. I fail to see why this is any different than allowing 
> identifiers to differ only in case.

Yes, but the right variable names make the context obvious, as in:

	Traffic_Light_Color := Amber;
or
	Stone_Formation := Amber;

Then the context is immediately clear, but the following isn't:

	X := Amber;
and
	x := Amber;

To me, relying on case sensitivity clouds the context.  Sure, you can
get used to it, but it's more things to keep up with, and requires
more documentation.

However, as a minor exception to that, we do use all uppercase to
indicate constants, as in MAXIMUM_DEVICES.

Frank

RE: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <mailman.1003874733.1432.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>, "Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil> writes:

> However, as a minor exception to that, we do use all uppercase to
> indicate constants, as in MAXIMUM_DEVICES.

That must make for a lot of editing when a former constant becomes
a variable or a function call in some subsequent version.

RE: Why not combine Ada and C++?

[Beard, Frank]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net [mailto:Kilgallen@SpamCop.net]

>> However, as a minor exception to that, we do use all uppercase to
>> indicate constants, as in MAXIMUM_DEVICES.

> That must make for a lot of editing when a former constant becomes
> a variable or a function call in some subsequent version.

It hasn't happened yet, but you're right, it could be a problem if
you haphazardly pick names that you might intermix as constants or
variables.  We tend to use names containing the word MAXIMUM, MINIMUM,
LIMIT, etc., for constants.  As far as changing constants to functions,
most of our constants are in the package bodies, and exported through
functions.

It was a Style Guide/Coding Standards decision made 8 years ago for
the various projects.  It hasn't come back to haunt us yet.