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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-26 12:52:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:45:11 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3F67AAC6.2000906@attbi.com> <3F7024F8.1000102@crs4.it> <3F71A78A.5000701@crs4.it> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:43022 Date: 2003-09-26T14:45:11-05:00 List-Id: "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:bebbba07.0309251541.63ef4f7d@posting.google.com... > As you might have anticipated, however, I don't agree with you about > the "other consequences of trying to define and implement "+=" in > Ada". As far as I am concerned, the "other consequences" are > potentially improved efficiency for vector/matrix arithmetic and other > applications, but as you know I've already beaten that one to death. I > think it will take a friggin' nuclear device to get anyone here to > budge on that one. More than a nuclear device, for the simple reason that there are a limited number of changes to the standard that can be made. The effort to write and edit the standard, the effort to update implementations and tools, the effort to create new books and training are all limited. (This isn't the early 80's when Ada had a virtually unlimited budget.) So possible features have to be compared to other possible features, and only the most important ones chosen. (An obvious example: several people here have said that interface inheritance will be in the next Ada. That's far from a done deal, because it takes up such a large part of the 'budget'. I personally would trade it for the inclusion of a number of other important improvements. The ARG has not yet determined what will be in or out.) So the question is not whether or not an idea is a good one, or workable, or whatever, but does it bring enough additional to the table to merit including it over others. I would hope that you realize that purely syntactic changes (like this one) don't buy as much for their effort as real new features (like limited with or interface inheritance). There are some changes contemplated (particularly the prefix call notation) which are very much in the category of "making Ada seem more familar to outsiders". And many others aimed at making Ada more consistent. But clearly there can only be a very limited number of such things. Can you honestly say that :=+ is more important than prefix calls or "not null" modifiers or anonymous access-to-constant types? Randy.