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 autolearn=ham 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!news.glorb.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 29 Aug 2004 11:57:07 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: DXC=QRAl7JCk0ikZ X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3142 Date: 2004-08-29T11:57:07-04:00 List-Id: "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? > 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 /Jon -- 'jay' - a n t h o n y at romeo/november/charley com