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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,243dc2fb696a49cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: kevin.cline@gmail.com (Kevin Cline)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Popularity: Comparison of Ada/Charles with C++ STL (and Perl)
Date: 26 Sep 2004 00:17:13 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e749549b.0409252317.67053352@posting.google.com>
References: <e749549b.0409211621.6f3d3723@posting.google.com>
 <g563l0llm9trvjcn9n9ao4vit704b43kqm@4ax.com>
 <e749549b.0409230100.6a488b25@posting.google.com> <wvbrd60dusx0.fsf@sun.com>
 <e749549b.0409231111.7d98264d@posting.google.com>
 <cj0qlt$qkh$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <uy8izu0h8.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <13bv1aau5q9ht.1fr6ixcdql72.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.219.97.214
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1096183034 1757 127.0.0.1 (26 Sep 2004 07:17:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:17:14 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4196
Date: 2004-09-26T00:17:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message news:<13bv1aau5q9ht.1fr6ixcdql72.dlg@40tude.net>...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:47:52 GMT, Matthew Heaney wrote:
> 
> > And the reason why we have to write the subpgram is because Ada doesn't
> > give you any direct way of returning a reference to variable view from a
> > function, as C++ does.  But even so, in Ada you can modify objets in
> > place (in AI-302 by using a downward closure -- which C++ doesn't have).
> > That's what really matters, not the syntax.
> 
> Syntax does not matter. What matters is an ability to express an idea in
> the syntax you want. To me, the most natural syntax for modifying an array
> element is A(I) := B;

This is how I develop C++ code.  I start programming at a high-level,
writing code in the syntax I want to use.  Then I write the code to
support the syntax.  This works pretty well until I want to do
something like overload ".".  So far I haven't thought of doing that,
but after messing with boost::lambda, I can see why one would.