Re: Structured exception information

[Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> 
> > We did look at this issue when working on the Amendment. The "obvious"
> > answers seem to have issues with visibility and compatibility with existing
> > Ada.Exceptions mechanisms.
> 
> If we had done it right in Ada 95, we wouldn't have had the
> Ada.Exceptions kludge in the first place, so no need to be complatible
> with it.
> 
> I don't know what the visibility issues were, so I can't comment on
> that.  Do you happen to know which AI this was?

It is things like this that make Ada no longer be my favourite language.

Ada's whole approach to OO, while powerful, makes it inconvenient to express
things that are easily done in other languages. At least Ada 2005 is improving
things.

With regard to structured exceptions, other languages have done it, and the
problems preventing from being done well in Ada seem artificial. Why can't it
just work conveniently for the programmer?

C# is now my new favourite language, and I find it is more or less as typesafe
as it needs to be, with "good enough" features for programming in the large.

And it has garbage collection!

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.