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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable 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!news2.google.com!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexander E. Kopilovich" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:52:32 +0400 (MSD) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1094932294 73881 212.85.156.195 (11 Sep 2004 19:51:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:51:34 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from jayessay at 09 Sep 2004 20:53:37 -0400 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3595 Date: 2004-09-11T23:52:32+04:00 jayessay wrote: > "Alexander E. Kopilovich" writes: > > > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > > > > On 08 Sep 2004 10:52:05 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> "LD" == Lionel Draghi writes: > > > > ... > > > > LD> How could this be? > > > > LD> With powerful typing you write code. > > > > LD> Without, you write as much code and much more tests. > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. He is not arguing against strong typing, > > > > but against *static* typing. > > > > > > Apparently, but when consistently pursued that kind of argumentation > > > inevitable leads to arguing against any typing, especially against ADT. The > > > philosophy behind is that types are random artifacts of the program, rather > > > than the basis of software design. > > > > No, the philosophy behind this is that there is no need for type > > systems to be always of mainframe kind - comprehensive, complex, > > requiring distinguished and rare experts for their creation, future > > development and general maintenance > > I submit that for good or ill (I believe good) the Common Lisp type > system is an example of this sort of characterization. This is certainly OK (and perhaps even necessary) for a general platform, on which various more simple and specifically targeted languages can be built. Development of such domain-specific languages surely require good expertise, but not so advanced and rare as it is needed for development/maintenance of the platform itself. I suppose that you meant languages of that kind in the following passage from your previous message here in comp.lang.ada : (Message-Id: Date: 03 Sep 2004 12:43:04 -0400) | ... The second is achieved by crafting a constrained narrowly | focused domain specific language _within_ Lisp, which allows the | programmer to then work at the level of the domain, _both_ | syntactically as well as semantically. This is why Lisp macros | (please don't confuse with any other kind of macro you've come across | before) are such a big deal. Alexander Kopilovich aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia