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,beb0b7471c6440e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-28 10:23:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttln1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3BFA4095.8325D016@earthlink.net> <27085883.0111201750.234ce321@posting.google.com> <3c034c88.494656@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <0cOM7.85029$XJ4.46127980@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com> Subject: Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:23:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.248.56.237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttln1.wa.home.com 1006971803 24.248.56.237 (Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:23:23 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:23:23 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17122 Date: 2001-11-28T18:23:23+00:00 List-Id: "Brian Rogoff" wrote in message news:Pine.BSF.4.10.10111271642360.93360-100000@bpr.best.vwh.net... > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Mark Lundquist wrote > > > Actually, template "metaprogramming" doesn't really excite me > > I admit, I find it pretty neat, but that's not what I want when I long for > automatic instantiation. Once you have a combination of type inference and > overloading its too easy to get non-termination as a feature of type > checking. If I really want template metaprogramming, better to just have > Lisp style procedural macros. agreed > > MD is a nice feature, and I like it in Lisp/Dylan, but I think its a bit > much for a language like Ada. Agree, and anyhow is there a case for MD that cannot be solved using the redispatching idiom in Ada? > > I'm of the opinion that genericity is the part of Ada that could use some > enhancement. Once Ada gets some Java-like interface capability in its OO > part, that should be enough. I dunno... I really like the multiple views idiom. But I'd probably be outvoted on that one :-) -- mark