Re: FAQ and string functions

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:

> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> IMHO, that philosophy is exactly the opposite of what high-level
> languages are all about.  The parts of Ada that disobey this philosophy
> are the better parts.
> 
> Here's an example: In Ada, one can write "A := B;".  If they are
> integers, it's fast.  If they are gigantic arrays, it could be a million
> times slower, or more.  That's good -- assignment uses a single notation
> no matter how fast or slow.  Contrast with C, where copying arrays uses
> a different syntax from copying ints.

That's not a fair example. For assignment, the cost is clearly
proportional to the size of the data, which is easily visible in the
source.

Hidden memory allocation is not clearly visible (because it's hidden
:), but is expensive.

A more valid example of hidden expense for assignment is a Controlled
type; Finalize and Adjust could be expensive. But even there, the
definition of the type clearly says "Controlled", so you are warned
that it might be expensive.

-- 
-- Stephe