So Ada had it wrong all the time it seems. From
https://python.land/python-tutorial
------------
In a strongly typed language, you need to specify the exact
type of each variable, like String, int, and float. It
gets even uglier when objects are involved.
Now let’s look at Python variables. In Python, we can do
exactly the same without types:
my_name = "Erik"
my_age = 37
my_salary = 1250.70
As you can see, the Python variant is a lot cleaner and easier on the eyes! >----------------------
And about possible error, they defend this by saying:
--------------------------
In addition, you’ll find out soon enough during testing
and fix the error before the software ever goes to production. >---------------------------
So, I think all what Ada needs is to simply remove all those
ugly types from the language and it will become popular
like Python is now :)
--Nasser
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 22:21:08 -0500, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>
wrote:
So Ada had it wrong all the time it seems. From
https://python.land/python-tutorial
------------
In a strongly typed language, you need to specify the exact
type of each variable, like String, int, and float. It
gets even uglier when objects are involved.
Now let’s look at Python variables. In Python, we can do
exactly the same without types:
my_name = "Erik"
my_age = 37
my_salary = 1250.70
As you can see, the Python variant is a lot cleaner and easier on the eyes! >> ----------------------
And about possible error, they defend this by saying:
--------------------------
In addition, you’ll find out soon enough during testing
and fix the error before the software ever goes to production.
---------------------------
So, I think all what Ada needs is to simply remove all those
ugly types from the language and it will become popular
like Python is now :)
--Nasser
nonsense.
A more deep analysis begs the question, why don't we remove all that
ugly variables and the code itself?
Programming by the emoji is the future!
In addition, you’ll find out soon enough during testing
and fix the error before the software ever goes to production.
I still do not know if they have strong types when using Emoji languages
or not. May be you can not add a smily face to sad face? That will be
type error at compile time?
Programming by the emoji is the future!
As someone who has been programming since 1966 I used several
different languages, Algol 60, Fortran, Basic, C/C++ and Ada, I like
using strong types because the most ugly faults you can create are the
ones where you by accident use different types in the input or the
output of a formula.
So Ada had it wrong all the time it seems. From
https://python.land/python-tutorial
------------
In a strongly typed language, you need to specify the exact
type of each variable, like String, int, and float. It
gets even uglier when objects are involved.
Now let’s look at Python variables. In Python, we can do
exactly the same without types:
my_name = "Erik"
my_age = 37
my_salary = 1250.70
As you can see, the Python variant is a lot cleaner and easier on the eyes! ----------------------
And about possible error, they defend this by saying:
--------------------------
In addition, you’ll find out soon enough during testing
and fix the error before the software ever goes to production. ---------------------------
ldries46 <bertus...@planet.nl> writes:
(I don't know enough about Python's new static type
syntax to know how strong that is, but it's optional anyway.)
Haskell, for example, has strong static type
checking, but a lot of Haskell is written without ever using a type
because of the language's type inference mechanism.
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:03:00 AM UTC-5, Ben wrote:
ldries46 <bertus...@planet.nl> writes:
(I don't know enough about Python's new static type
syntax to know how strong that is, but it's optional anyway.)
I think you mean "type hints"? The compiler doesn't check even when
you specify the types. The typing is available for those who want to
use a 3rd party tool to do "stuff" with it. See the note at the top of
this page: https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html
Haskell, for example, has strong static type
checking, but a lot of Haskell is written without ever using a type
because of the language's type inference mechanism.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you mean "without ever *specifying* a
type"?
Several recent languages have taken this up, including Kotlin
and Rust, though you have to specify some types.
Even Ada 2022 offers it with the "renames" keyword.
I don't know much about Ada newer than about 1990. I'll take a look...
On Fri, 03 Jun 2022 01:02:27 +0100, Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> declaimed
the following:
I don't know much about Ada newer than about 1990. I'll take a look...
My condolences
-- taken literally, that means you are working with
Ada-83 (ANSI/Mil-Std 1815A -- later ISO-8652:1987). The first significant update was Ada-95 (and Air Force funded original GNAT).
Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2022 01:02:27 +0100, Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> declaimed
the following:
I don't know much about Ada newer than about 1990. I'll take a look...
My condolences
Thank, but I'm fine. Knowing was not intended to imply forced to use.
-- taken literally, that means you are working with
Ada-83 (ANSI/Mil-Std 1815A -- later ISO-8652:1987). The first significant
update was Ada-95 (and Air Force funded original GNAT).
That was the only Ada I knew, though I knew about the updates of
course. Couldn't find any reference to type inference though.
Is there a good place to go for a "summary of changes" between standards?
On 2022-06-03 21:13, Ben wrote:<cut>
Is there a good place to go for a "summary of changes" between standards?
Each version of the Reference Manual has an "Introduction" chapter that contains a subheading "Language Changes", but those are quite terse. If
you can find a "Rationale" document for the version in question that usually has much more information about the changes.
For Ada 95: https://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/95rat/rat95html/rat95-contents.html
For Ada 2005: https://www.adaic.org/ada-resources/standards/ada05/
For Ada 2012: http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/rationale12.html
For Ada 2022, see the Intro in the RM: http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada2x.html
For Ada 2022 I don't think there is any "Rationale" document (yet), but there are various summaries and introductions, for example
https://learn.adacore.com/courses/whats-new-in-ada-2022/chapters/introduction.html
As far as I know, the only type inferencing that occur in Ada is in
for-loops where the type of the loop parameter variable is inferred from
the range or container over which the loop iterates.
Each version of the Reference Manual has an "Introduction" chapter that contains a subheading "Language Changes", but those are quite terse. If
you can find a "Rationale" document for the version in question that
usually has much more information about the changes.
For Ada 2022, see the Intro in the RM: http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada2x.html
For Ada 2022 I don't think there is any "Rationale" document (yet), but
there are various summaries and introductions, for example https://learn.adacore.com/courses/whats-new-in-ada-2022/chapters/introduction.html
"Niklas Holsti" <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote in message >news:jfv2hsF2jgfU1@mid.individual.net...[...]
[...]For Ada 2022, see the Intro in the RM:
http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada2x.html
For Ada 2022 I don't think there is any "Rationale" document (yet), but
there are various summaries and introductions, for example
It is not likely that there will be an Ada 2022 Rationale, as no one has >stepped up to write it or pay John Barnes write it. The closest thing we
have is the Jeff Cousins overview, which I can't find an on-line reference
to (or my copy, for that matter). I'll check with Jeff and hopefully get
more information.
Randy.
Programming by the emoji is the future!
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
It is not likely that there will be an Ada 2022 Rationale, as no one has stepped up to write it or pay John Barnes write it. The closest thing we
have is the Jeff Cousins overview, which I can't find an on-line reference
to (or my copy, for that matter). I'll check with Jeff and hopefully get
more information.
Randy.
How much would it likely cost to pay someone to generate the Ada2022 rationale? Maybe the community can join together to help fund the
work?
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 5:28:28 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
It is not likely that there will be an Ada 2022 Rationale, as no one has
stepped up to write it or pay John Barnes write it. The closest thing we
have is the Jeff Cousins overview, which I can't find an on-line
reference
to (or my copy, for that matter). I'll check with Jeff and hopefully get
more information.
Randy.
How much would it likely cost to pay someone to generate the Ada2022 rationale? Maybe the community can join together to help fund the work?
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 5:28:28 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
It is not likely that there will be an Ada 2022 Rationale, as no one
has stepped up to write it or pay John Barnes write it. The closest
thing we have is the Jeff Cousins overview, which I can't find an
on-line reference to (or my copy, for that matter). I'll check with
Jeff and hopefully get more information.
"Wesley Pan" <wesley.y.pan@gmail.com> wrote [...]:
How much would it likely cost to pay someone to generate the Ada2022
rationale? Maybe the community can join together to help fund the work?
Dunno, you'd have to ask John.
I did get a copy of Jeff Cousin's overview that I'll put up on
Ada-Auth.org when I get time (probably not until next month).
"Niklas Holsti" <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote in message >news:jfv2hsF2jgfU1@mid.individual.net...[...]
[...]For Ada 2022, see the Intro in the RM:
http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada2x.html
For Ada 2022 I don't think there is any "Rationale" document (yet), but
there are various summaries and introductions, for example
It is not likely that there will be an Ada 2022 Rationale, as no one has >stepped up to write it or pay John Barnes write it. The closest thing we
have is the Jeff Cousins overview, which I can't find an on-line reference
to (or my copy, for that matter). I'll check with Jeff and hopefully get
more information.
Randy.
To conclude, I repeat below my earlier posting with more information
on, and pointers to, John's and Jeff's contributions: ...
I hope this helps.
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 5:28:28 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
It is not likely that there will be an Ada 2022 Rationale, as no one
has stepped up to write it or pay John Barnes write it. The closest
thing we have is the Jeff Cousins overview, which I can't find an
on-line reference to (or my copy, for that matter). I'll check with
Jeff and hopefully get more information.
Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:...
...I did get a copy of Jeff Cousin's overview that I'll put up on
Ada-Auth.org when I get time (probably not until next month).
See my follow-up to Randy's June 3 posting quoted above, that I
posted on 4 Jun in this newsgroup with subject "What's new in Ada
2022?" (copied below).
- John Barnes wrote a 46 page overview on what's new in Ada 2022;
it is available as a new appendix in his latest book "Programming
in Ada 2012 with a Preview of Ada 2022";
- Jeff Cousin's overview was published in the Ada User Journal (AUJ),
and is already available in the online AUJ archive.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:24:02 |
| Calls: | 8,141 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,085 |
| Messages: | 5,858,054 |