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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-30 20:56:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!cyclone.swbell.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.143!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B662D8E.233E235A@sneakemail.com> From: Russ Paielli <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-20mdk i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to make Ada a dominant language References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <9k3l9r$10i2$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B656345.64AB603A@sneakemail.com> <9k3oa1$2qg8$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B657715.7EC592D9@sneakemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:01:18 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 996551794 63.194.87.148 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:56:34 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:56:34 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10817 Date: 2001-07-30T21:01:18-07:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Russ Paielli wrote: > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > > > > > One of the best things about Ada is stability. There have only been two > > > versions of the standard, and vendor extensions are well under control. > > > > > There are many things that can be done to make Ada more popular outside > > > the language definition. Any changes to the language pale by comparison > > > in their effect. Making Ada more popular would not be desireable if it > > > hurt the clarity and correctness advantages Ada has now. > > > > My proposal is deliberately designed to have a minimal effect on > > stability. As I said, a relatively simple preprocessor would be able to > > translate back and forth between Ada95 and the syntax I am proposing. If > > you want to continue to use Ada95 syntax, you could do so with impunity. > > What's the problem? > > You'd split the Ada community into two camps (one of which I imagine would > be very very small :) just to make Ada look like another relatively > unpopular language. If you're not careful, they may both become small :-) > Personally, I much prefer ":=" to "=" for assignment. OTOH, getting rid of > ":=" for constant declarations would be an (minor) improvement. More > important would be to add the C influenced Icon operators like +:=, -:=, > *:=, etc. Anyhow, assignment should stick out, and it is not symmetric. I bet you'd really love "$=". And "#$%^&*=" probably really looks great to you. ;') > I proposed before that an Ada like language with superficial C like syntax > wouldn't be so bad either (well, really I was just following through on > Bob Duff's tongue-in-cheek proposal) and that would have the advantage of > making Ada look like a popular (compared to Python) family of languages. > I fully acknowledge that it was mostly a thought exercise for a new > language. Ada syntax ain't gonna change that much! > > > In the meantime, the Ada community seems determined to rearrange the > > chairs on the deck of the Titanic. > > I would consider your new surface syntax an activity of the same kind :-). I figured you would, but I think you and just about everyone else on this thread is missing an important point. Yes, syntax is superficial in the sense that it doesn't affect the fundamental structure of the language, but it is important in determining the elegance of the language. Ever heard the expression, "the first impression is the most important"? Well, the first impression people get of a programming language is based largely on the syntax. I'll bet a lot of programmers are unconsciously biased one way or the other about a programming language based simply on their initial reaction to the syntax. > I'd rather see some semantic enhancements (downward funargs, multiple > interface inheritance, withing problem fixed, ...) and leave the > syntax alone. > > > I read recently that only one in ten new DoD WEAPONS programs is even > > choosing Ada now that the DoD mandate has been dropped. Don't even ask > > about DoD accounting and supply-chain management programs! > > I have more faith in the open source community than in the DoD. The DoD controls a huge arsenal of nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional weapons. We had better all hope they don't have buggy software! > > I am trying to sell Ada for a safety-critical program, and I am getting > > little or no support from my organization. I get forwarded email > > messages from full professors of CS at MIT claiming that Ada is being > > replaced by Java even in their studies of software reliability. > > Nothing against the tute (course 18, '86), but it has never been very Ada > friendly. > > Selling a particular language that is not "mainstream" is tough in a > commercial environment. Changing the syntax of Ada would make that job > harder. I disagree. > > You Ada guys seem determined to let Ada slip into oblivion. I'll bet HAL > > and Jovial programmers are proud of the stability of their languages > > too. > > C programmers value the stability of C as well, thanks. And for those of > us who can tolerate rapidly evolving languages, there are far more > interesting contestants than Python (www.ocaml.org, www.haskell.org, ...). > > > I am new to Ada, and I believe that gives me a certain perspective that > > Ada veterans lack. > > That's true. Do you also acknowledge that people with more experience may > have a certain perspective that you lack? Of course I do. I have no doubt they know more about Ada than I do, but I also have no doubt that they have unwittingly conditioned themselves to overlook the cosmetic warts of the language. > > I am making a proposal that could save the best programming language > > around, and all I get is a bunch of irrelevant criticism. > > No such thing as "the best programming language". The criticism isn't > really all irrelevant, either. IMO, if you want to make Ada more > successful just write tools that you want (in Ada of course) and make the > source available under some open source license. It's just a question of > making the activation energy for choosing Ada low enough... Good luck, but you may have even more of an uphill battle than I have. :') Russ