Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request

[fmdf@tiscali.it (fabio de francesco)]

"Richard  Riehle" <adaworks@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<GVZVc.9513$3O3.1068@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> It seems that, even when I am trying to be generous toward someone
> with a different point-of-view, a few on my side of the argument
> can still be offended by that very generosity.

I don't think that "offended" is the right verb, it seems excessive to
me.

> I am satisfied that Kevin has applied his own criteria with intelligence
> and and sincerity to reaching his conclusions.   I don't share his
> conclusions, and given the same information, have come to a
> different viewpoint.   My concession is not an admission of defeat
> in the argument. 

I also don't want to make any assumptions on the cleverness of people.
I just say that whenever you discuss matters of taste people can have
different points of view, but in the case of a scientific problem with
given informations people should come to the same conclusions. The
only exceptions are either you have wrong given data or you take the
wrong explanation path.
He only lists wrong and 'unproven assumptions' and he also gets
'unrelated consequencies'.
 
At
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4042257105d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=e749549b.0408200838.43e841d%40posting.google.com&rnum=53
Kevin says:

1) "Yes.  The syntax, and particularly the need for explicit generic
instantiation, makes Ada programs much longer than equivalent C++
programs.  Longer programs take longer to write and longer to read."
Where is the evidence that an Ada program is longer than a C++ one? (
Unproven Assumption ).
What does demonstrate that the time it takes to read and understand
lines of code are related to the lenght of the code itself? (
Unrelated Consequences ).

2) (Question: Is the ability to define one's own types?)
 "That is a problem." ( Unproven Assumption. He wants to demonstrate
that a capability doesn't add anything to the power of a language,
instead he says that the feature steals something to Ada )
 "User defined types are less compatable with built-in types than they
are in C++." ( This means nothing to me )
 "This makes generic programming more difficult." ( Whom for?
Unrelated Consequence )
 "I find it more difficult to factor out duplication in Ada than I do
in C++." ( This is only his problem and it doesn't prove anything )

3) "I think the very existence of limited types" (Ok, Proven
Assumption)
 "is a fundamental flaw in Ada".(Unrelated Consequences).
How can it be proved? Please will someone ( may be Kevin itself ) show
me the rationale of this reasoning?

4) " The difficulty of learning Ada" ( Unproven Assumption. How can he
state that learning Ada is more difficult than learning C++? How is it
proved? This shows only his difficult to learn Ada )
 "is a flaw in the language." ( Unrelated Consequences )

I don't want to go on, I'm tired.

> It is a recognition that intelligent people can reach
> different conclusions even after examining the same information. I
> am sorry you find fault with that.
> 
> Richard Riehle

It seems to me that he has examined informations from different
sources than the ones you have, if you are the author of "Ada
Distilled".

Anyway do you think that two doctors that look at the same
informations and come up with different diagnoses are both them right?
With science it's never a matter of points of view.

Ciao,
Fabio De Francesco