Re: How to get Ada to ?cross the chasm??

[Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com>]

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> You know C and by extension C++ are Algol derives too, right?
> 
> One can get philosophical but I wouldn't say they are.  

And you’re wrong.

>> I would say Ada’s a much higher level language than C++. I’ve no idea what
>> you mean by "automation level.”
> 
> I wanted to avoid the flame war about HLL vs LLL and just compare how
> much language does for the user automatically.  I think C++ is higher
> level than C in that regard.  It seems to me that Ada is somewhere

It’s not a flamewar, try the language, you’ll see. 

> concurrency TS is not yet standardized but there's some info here:
> 
>  http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/concurrency
> 

I’ve not checked it properly yet, but I don’t expect much more than a thin
wrapper around a thread api.

> 
>> You should also check out separates, no other language has those. 
> 
> Do you mean "procedure xyz is separate" so you put the implementation
> outside the package body?  In C++ you can say "int someclass::xyz(...)"
> for a similar effect.

But Ada’s package system helps here as it’s more robust, c++’s way is just
dumping something in another file and let the linker deal with it.

> 
>> I still say it has the best data structuring abilities of any language.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that?  

As in sizing, alignment and placement. See representation clauses.

>> Tools are limited to half arsed re compiler compilers.
> 
> Or by that?

You mentioned parsing,
> 
>> You can’t compare parsing a language like Ada to LISP, FFS! 
> 
> Of course not!  Lisp just makes it easier to write out nested lists and

I didn’t mention lists. You mentioned compiling the language, I’m talking
about parsing the source which is part of the compilation process.

>> Oh, your an OOP denier! 
> 
> "The problem with object-oriented languages is they've got all this
> implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a
> banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire
> jungle." --Joe Armstrong (inventor of Erlang)
> 

That’s only true for:

1) languages like Java which force everything to be an object.
2) languages like C++ where programmers insist on replacing RTTI because
it’s too slow or not available in the compiler, si they end up producing
this massive object hierarchy.

You don’t do this in Ada, because it’s not retarded. Not everything is an
object. Not everything is a function.