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: 103376,b0123581076a0cf3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-11 19:24:50 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada ad in Embedded Systems Programming stinks Date: 11 Sep 1994 19:47:26 -0400 Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences Message-ID: <3504ue$lpj@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> References: <1994Sep1.084046.21595@sei.cmu.edu> <344u9q$di5@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <347idh$15ss@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <34tu91$139u@source.asset.com> <34usma$hti@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <19940911.4965@naggum.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu Date: 1994-09-11T19:47:26-04:00 List-Id: But Erik, surely you can't think the RM is the right place to learn Ada style. Indeed much of the RM, of necessity, discusses marginal cases and rules that are there for semantic consistency, but are hardly valuable tools in the Ada programmer's arsenal. In the past, I have been a big supporter of the idea of all Ada programmers using the Ada RM as a major reference tool, but the Ada 9X RM, partly as a result of the increased complexity of the language, particularly in its type model, and partly because of the greater emphasis on a somewhat more formal style (in an attempt to be more precise), is considerably more difficult to understand than the Ada 83 RM. Erik, I would be interested if your opinions are arrived at with a thorough familiarity with the 9X RM, or are more just the way you hope things should be. Anyway, I continue to think that having optional RM references is what serves the community of people using GNAT best. 95% of the time, the RM reference would be completely unnecessary, even for a novice programmer, and only in a faction of the remaining 5% of cases would it really be a big help, and that's the case in which you can look it up. Note also that the GNOME approach gives much MORE than simply an RM reference, it gives a more thorough explanation, of which the RM reference is only one aspect. THe issue of how accessible defining documents should be is an interesting one. I am one of the relatively few people who got to know the Algol-68 revised report thoroughly. At that level of knowledge, it is a superb document, extremely precise, very complete, and very accessible. However, the great majority of people found it completely inpenetrable, and it clearly contributed to the demise of the language. I am afraid that if people's first introduction to using Ada at a simple level points to the RM, this will NOT be helpful in convincing people that Ada is simple to learn and easy to use. Of course experienced programmers will continue to use the RM as a primary reference source, and that's why it is valuable to get the error references when you need them.