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-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <L2ith.12633$ji1.1337@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>
 <mailman.44.1169724732.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <WaBuh.15096$pQ3.10501@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <HYPuh.15976$yx6.6882@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1170347180.14376.104.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <c364al3hlu.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <wccveihe8tq.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: Markus E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Organization: N/A
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:00:33 +0100
Message-ID: <v81wl51kr2.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zCIY4TOP+fBkQPB+XIPJAI0CPZg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.198.57
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1170636931 88.72.198.57 (5 Feb 2007 01:55:31 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8948
Date: 2007-02-05T02:00:33+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



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

> Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
>
>> ...As I wrote elsewhere: All common programming languages are Turing
>> complet,
>
> OK.
>
>>... so equivalent.
>
> Equivalent in some sense.
>
>>... There is nothing that can be done in one that
>> could not be done in the other -- in principle.
>
> No, I won't agree with the "nothing in one than the other" idea.
> For example, you can read the clock in standard Ada,
> but you cannot in standard Pascal.
> That's "something that can be done" in one language but
> not the other.
>
> Another example: one cannot write the garbage collector of a Java
> implementation in Java.
>
> I'm sure you know this -- I'm just quibbling with your wording:
> things that can/cannot be done, versus functions that can/cannot be
> computed (by Turing machines).

You're also missing my point somewhat :-): That equivalence "in
principle" that every program in L1 has a program in L2 which does the
same computation (and I/O if you like) is not the point. The point is,
in practical programming, _how_ things are done. Not their result, but
how much pain is inflicted and how comprehensible the end result
is. How long in absolute terms the way from the problem mind set to
the implementation of a solution is.

But I take your point. It's less the language though, but the standard
library (which in pascal is not seperable, I know).

Regards -- Markus.