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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 108717,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-08 15:07:42 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!news.euro.net!p71.euronet.nl!worp From: worp@euronet.nl (Bart_van_der_Worp) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada? Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 23:50:36 Organization: Euronet Internet Message-ID: References: <1994Nov29.154220.27952@cognos.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p71.euronet.nl X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:8432 comp.lang.c:33934 comp.programming:5719 comp.lang.c++:40215 comp.object:9625 Date: 1994-12-08T23:50:36+00:00 List-Id: In article kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes: >From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) >Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada? >Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:49:28 GMT >worp@euronet.nl (Bart_van_der_Worp) writes: > (Strong) typing gives most programming languages user friendly interfaces. >Do you mean *strong* typing, or *static* typing? I have to admit that I don't know the meaning of static typing. Does this mean it is not possible to declare derived and/or subtypes? What I ment in this posting was, that typing which is tailorred to the requirements of a type makes reading, developing and maintaining easier, dispite of the deficiencies in current languages. An extreme is the C typedef with allmost no compiler checking, but which adds to readability, to which I referred as 'user friendly interface'. If some kind of typechecking is not flexible enough, like the previous example of the dimension problem implemented as ADA types, my idea is that it is allways possible to use a less strong mechanism, e.g. derived types in ADA, which does the job. But of course, this will be a *compromise* which allows operations which are functionally not allowed. However, it will add to the readability of the code which is also very important IMHO. A practical viewpoint. The ideal typing has not yet been invented, if at all possible. By the way, I ment customer in stead of client..... Sorry for my English, wich is also far from ideal.... Bart.