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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:47:09 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.223.101 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1093798029 66.81.223.101 (Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:47:09 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:47:09 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3145 Date: 2004-08-29T16:47:09+00:00 List-Id: "jayessay" wrote in message news:m3isb2ey3w.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com... > "Richard Riehle" writes: > > > > Smalltalk is an excellent tool for object-oriented programming, and > > a good choice when the deeper concern is not software safety. > > Are you trying to say that Smalltalk is somehow inherently less "safe" > than things like Ada and Eiffel? What is "safe" here? > Ada and Eiffel are designed with more compile-time checking capabilities than Smalltalk. For safety-critical software, Ada is more appropriate, in most cases than Smalltalk. This is not meant to deprecate Smalltalk. Rather, it is intended to recognize that there are differences in languages, and some have benefits for certain kinds of problem space than others. Smalltalk certainly has its benefits, but large-scale, safety-critical software is not one of them. > > > Functional languages free the developer from concerns about the > > underlying representation issues, and allow one to work at a level > > of abstraction not easily available in imperative languages. > > This isn't true as simply stated. There are counterexamples (most > notably Common Lisp and to a somewhat lesser degree Scheme). What > real functional languages buy you is the absence of side effects, > which makes proofs about them significantly simpler > Ah, yes. Those wonderful counter-examples. You are correct about the absence of side-effects (though one can argue counter-examples even there, but I won't). When I speak of "underlying representation issues" I mean the absence of side-effects that accompany the kind of assignment that concerns an imperative language programmer. For example, a Common Lisp programmer rarely agnonizes over such silliness as constructors, copy constructors, overloading assignment operators, friends, and all the hideous little details that characterize so much of C++ programming. Functional languages tend to more focused on the problem at hand rather than the environment in which the problem will be solved and the implications of that environment on the outcome. Richard Riehle