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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to get Ada to "cross the chasm"? Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:56:24 -0500 Organization: JSA Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com> <878t9nemrl.fsf@nightsong.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 22:56:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226"; logging-data="20797"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51705 Date: 2018-04-25T17:56:24-05:00 List-Id: "Dan'l Miller" wrote in message news:de23c005-4b50-4910-9327-6d4acdaa7270@googlegroups.com... ... >4) classic cars of yesteryear that don't try to compete with modern cars, > but rather just stay refurbished enough to keep running. > >I am hoping that #4 is not the model for Ada: It pretty much has to be. We aren't allowed to do anything that would break substantial amounts of existing code. That pretty much ties our hands in terms of some of the improvements that otherwise could be made -- and continues to pile up cruft in order to avoid such things at intersections. Don't get me wrong -- this isn't going to collapse Ada improvements tommorrow or in the near future, but it does limit what we can actually do. (Real garbage collection is impossible for Ada and so far as I can tell it never will be.) > I am very much hoping that Ada sees #2 above as its emerging mission > to extrapolate its current foundation of strengths. I personally doubt it, because building a model that actually could keep all of the cruft needed for compatibility would be very hard. If one could eliminate the worst mistakes of Ada (non-overloaded objects, the entire private characteristic model, coextensions, etc.) you maybe could do it. But then the FUD factor would come into play - how do you verify that the new definition doesn't introduce severe incompatibilities that weren't in the old one? If you can't do that somehow, you'll have a hard time getting sign on from part of the existing Ada community. (And it makes no sense to alienate your existing customers in a chase for new ones.) Randy.