From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on ip-172-31-65-14.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,NICE_REPLY_A, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: project euler 26 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 23:00:25 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <878r9mudvj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87a5u1u1yv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 21:00:23 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="84abbd2dc2e4fea6082302e85e06124d"; logging-data="1722892"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MmBg/NKio9natClNKqS5hFfj4PywCWAs=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:XKtFpt+IFWpw2Pesalk7jQeq4kE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <87a5u1u1yv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:65594 List-Id: On 2023-09-04 22:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > >> On 2023-09-04 18:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: >>> >>>> BTW, Ada is perfect for numeric algorithms no need to resort to functional >>>> mess... (:-)) >>> Perfect? That's a bold claim! >> >> Ada is a very improved descendant of Algol 60, which was designed to codify >> algorithms. > > Yes, though I was respond to you narrower remark about being perfect for > numeric algorithms. Yes, Ada is. > Are you expending that to perfect for every kind of > algorithm? Algorithms are defined in terms of established types, e.g. model numbers or other well known structures. Ada works pretty good for non-numeric algorithms too. So well, that many Ada programmers never go beyond this stage and proclaim anathema to anything above it. >> (rather than about for example building >> abstractions as in the case of OOP) > > That's interesting. You don't consider using functions and procedures > (possibly higher-order ones) to be a way to build abstractions? No, they do not introduce new types and do not form some structure of their values. And "using" is not an abstraction anyway. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de