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: 103376,4f316de357ae35e9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-13 17:47:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: FAQ and string functions Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:42:51 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <20020730093206.A8550@videoproject.kiev.ua> <4519e058.0207300548.15eeb65c@posting.google.com> <20020731104643.C1083@videoproject.kiev.ua> <4519e058.0208010629.5e6182ca@posting.google.com> <20020801194720.Q1080@videoproject.kiev.ua> <4519e058.0208020605.5ab7e092@posting.google.com> <3D4AAF63.72782659@san.rr.com> <3D4B2382.7030209@telepath.com> <3D4B2ACD.FDA29B9A@san.rr.com> <3D4B401E.3060802@telepath.com> <3D4B4477.500088B@san.rr.com> <3D4EA1AC.80D17170@san.rr.com> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27998 Date: 2002-08-13T19:42:51-05:00 List-Id: Darren New wrote in message <3D4EA1AC.80D17170@san.rr.com>... >Yes, you can program around the lack of unbounded arrays. >... I think your missing the Ada philosophy that something expensive should look expensive. An unbounded array (as you put it) is going to be expensive, and that expensive shouldn't be covered up in glossy syntax. Whether that philosophy is still appropriate is an interesting question. In any case, as with many other "containers" issues, I don't see the point. There is no advantage to even having a "unbounded arrays" package, as an access to an array works fine, and there is little advantage to the package (only an avoidance of memory leaks, easy to avoid in this case). I perfer to have packages that actually do something that makes it worthwhile to learn their interfaces, and things like "unbounded arrays" and "lists" just don't measure up. I'd rather build a tailored data structure for each purpose, because then I can control the efficiency (and the effort to write it is not that different). But I realize that many other people feel differently (perhaps people aren't learning how to create data structures anymore, just use them??) >And yes, I've already implemented my own unbounded arrays, thanks. :-) >They're not compatible with your unbounded arrays. *That* is the problem. I agree. These things should be packaged in the first place; they're part of a larger abstraction in your program -- and *that* is what should be packaged. (Breaking programs into too small chunks is just as bad as not decomposing enough.) But I suppose I am getting to be an old fuddy duddy in this way. I recall thinking how annoying old programmers were when I first started working on Janus/Ada; now (nearly 22 years later), I sound like them. Sigh. Probably should go bag groceries. :-) Randy.