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: 2003-09-27 15:41:33 PST Path: news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!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? [although this thread changed to something else a long time ago] Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:43:42 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <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: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:50 Date: 2003-09-27T17:43:42-05:00 List-Id: "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:bebbba07.0309271109.47069497@posting.google.com... > > Exactly. An important part of Ada is that its syntax was designed (as much > > as possible) to make one character errors generate something illegal. For > > most constructs, it takes several characters of change to create something > > else legal. This is definitely not true of C-family syntax. And this is the > > root of Ada's philosphy, that small changes do not change the meaning of a > > program, they simply make it illegal. > > > > (Yes, Ada does allow arithmetic operators, for the obvious reason that it > > would have too weird to say "Add" instead of "+". And it certainly is clear > > that you can't get rid of all one character errors, at least as long as you > > allow numbers. But that doesn't eliminate the basic point.) > > Hmmm... that's funny. I see that Ada has :=, /=, >=, and <=, all of > which differ by one character. With sloppiness like that, Ada must be > driving airplanes into buildings on a regular basis. Then again, > there's <=, <<, and <>, not to mention =>. > > An apparently you disagree with the original design of Ada, which as > you concede allows +, -, *, and /. I guess you think it should have > used a:=Plus(a,b). No, not at all. Using the conventional operators was the right choice, otherwise no one would have considered it at all. And note that all of the things you mention above are conventional operators. > I point out, furthermore, that a "one-character" difference is *much* > easier to detect in an operator than it is in a complex variable > name/reference, which was the point of my message that was quoted in > part above. I totally argee, but you have to be an idiot to declare variables that are one character apart. And without that, the program has an error and probably is relatively easy to find. In any case, I'm sympathic to the issue, but (a) I don't like this syntax, and there are other solutions, and (b) there are a hundred issues more important. I note that you didn't answer my note asking what you'd give up for this rather substantial change. > I've seen some weak arguments here, and this one is typical. What is > increasingly apparent to me is that Ada veterans are set in their > ways, and no amount of reason will budge them on the basic syntax of > Ada, even when if is deficient compared to the existing languages that > 98% of programmers use. 99.7% of Americans voted for an idiot in the last election (myself included). What does that prove? Most of them aren't even aware that better choices are available, and in many cases, they have no choice in the matter anyway (as in the election). Ada has real technical issues that need fixing, and that is where we need to put our limited energy. Copying everyone's pet ideas from other languages isn't it. (Indeed, MY pet ideas have long since been killed for this very reason.) Randy.