www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] Ada gems

reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
Just a bunch of links:

http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still be 
offered:

http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/
Oct 14 2014
next sibling parent "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
eles:


 Just a bunch of links:

 http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

 This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still 
 be offered:

 http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/


Two nice ones:

http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-24/
http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/gem-140-bridging-the-endianness-gap/

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 14 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:

 Just a bunch of links:

 http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

 This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still 
 be offered:

 http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/


Hijack, also OT: using C++ without memory management

http://engineering.adap.tv/listing/why-we-use-c-without-using-stl-or-boost/
Oct 14 2014
next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:


http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now

"I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I 
observe anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my 
stuff looks like C. I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues 
mis-using templates all over the place ("re-usability!", and 
hour-long compile times, coupled with really non-obvious implicit 
conversions and instantiations, never mind the error messages), 
and object-oriented hierarchies where each object is such a tiny 
part of the system that you need to remember 10 classes at the 
same time just to have a slight inkling of what this thing is 
actually supposed to do."
Oct 14 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:


 http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now


 "I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I observe
 anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my stuff looks like C.
 I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues mis-using templates all
 over the place ("re-usability!", and hour-long compile times, coupled
 with really non-obvious implicit conversions and instantiations, never
 mind the error messages), and object-oriented hierarchies where each
 object is such a tiny part of the system that you need to remember 10
 classes at the same time just to have a slight inkling of what this
 thing is actually supposed to do."


Actually I prefer,

"I used to love c++ and berade people who used wimp languages like Java. 
These days I mainly use java, and when I do have to use c++, it feels 
painfully dated.

At to C++11, while it added some useful stuff, in general it feels like 
it's just flailing while trying to bring in some of the language 
features of newer/more modern languages. The new concurrency stuff in 
particular is just plain unseemly.

Also, a relatively minor but annoying and long-standing problem with 
doing anything non-trivial in c++ is the lack of consistency between 3rd 
party libraries. Java has spoiled me into expecting everything to adhere 
to one convention, but with a c++ project as soon as you've got more 
than a few external libraries, you end up with a huge mess of code that 
doesn't mix properly, and writing adapters for everything to get that 
consistency is just insane.

Long rant short: I'm finding myself using c++ now mainly for:
- small bits of functionality to be used via JNI
- small stuff mainly focused around one library/task (Qt, pqxx, whatever)

Doing anything large and complex with c++ these days just doesn't appeal 
to me any more. I can build it much faster with java, it'll be more 
maintainable, and performance wise it's fine for what I do."

It reflects quite clearly my work environment since 2005.

--
Paulo
Oct 14 2014
next sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:


 http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now


 "I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I 
 observe
 anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my stuff 
 looks like C.
 I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues mis-using 
 templates all
 over the place ("re-usability!", and hour-long compile times, 
 coupled
 with really non-obvious implicit conversions and 
 instantiations, never
 mind the error messages), and object-oriented hierarchies 
 where each
 object is such a tiny part of the system that you need to 
 remember 10
 classes at the same time just to have a slight inkling of what 
 this
 thing is actually supposed to do."


 Actually I prefer,

 "I used to love c++ and berade people who used wimp languages 
 like Java. These days I mainly use java, and when I do have to 
 use c++, it feels painfully dated.

 At to C++11, while it added some useful stuff, in general it 
 feels like it's just flailing while trying to bring in some of 
 the language features of newer/more modern languages. The new 
 concurrency stuff in particular is just plain unseemly.


Isn't concurrency/parallell stuff coming in C++17?

I found the cppcon roundtable on concurrency interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI_0GzLWQ8
Oct 14 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 14.10.2014 um 22:08 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:


 http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now



 "I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I observe
 anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my stuff looks like C.
 I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues mis-using templates all
 over the place ("re-usability!", and hour-long compile times, coupled
 with really non-obvious implicit conversions and instantiations, never
 mind the error messages), and object-oriented hierarchies where each
 object is such a tiny part of the system that you need to remember 10
 classes at the same time just to have a slight inkling of what this
 thing is actually supposed to do."


 Actually I prefer,

 "I used to love c++ and berade people who used wimp languages like
 Java. These days I mainly use java, and when I do have to use c++, it
 feels painfully dated.

 At to C++11, while it added some useful stuff, in general it feels
 like it's just flailing while trying to bring in some of the language
 features of newer/more modern languages. The new concurrency stuff in
 particular is just plain unseemly.


 Isn't concurrency/parallell stuff coming in C++17?


I can use other languages *today* or wait until 2020 for C++17 to be 
available across all major compilers.

This assuming that they don't repeat the errors of C++11 in that regard.


 I found the cppcon roundtable on concurrency interesting:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI_0GzLWQ8



I did watch it, had no idea of the current problems with async.

--
Paulo
Oct 14 2014
parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 20:47:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.10.2014 um 22:08 schrieb "Ola Fosheim 
 =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:











 I can use other languages *today* or wait until 2020 for C++17 
 to be available across all major compilers.


IIRC, the standard team said something that for C++17 will be 
many technical notes that will implement changes available in 
experimental, thus people should be able to include them in their 
code.

Of course, having the compilers implement those, is another 
matter.

In defense of C++, beyond its C roots & compatibility, it also 
have been the language that made the mistakes useful for the 

mistakes by simply not repeating them. Of course, mistakes are 
obvious only after they are made and, as such, C++ was in the 
weakest position, just like any pioneer.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 07:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:

 In defense of C++, beyond its C roots & compatibility, it also 
 have been the language that made the mistakes useful for the 

 mistakes by simply not repeating them. Of course, mistakes are 
 obvious only after they are made and, as such, C++ was in the 
 weakest position, just like any pioneer.


I guess you could say that, but the reality is that C++ has been 
considered a bad language design from the start in academia. C++ 
wouldn't have had any chance without full C compatibility.

C++ is one more proof that installed based and gradual adoption 
in combination with supporting "The Next Big Thing" (OO) is the 
easy path to dominance. You could always defend using C++ by 
saying that you used it as mostly C with some bells and whistles 
(such as explicit inlining, overloading, vectors, complex numbers 
etc), so you did not have to learn C++ to start using it if you 
knew C. (Objective-C requires much more effort from the 
programmer)

Java primarily capitalized on educational institutions having a 
positive attitude towards SUN as a company. SUN was run by true 
engineers. In addition Java was marketed as a language for the 
web (which was hyped in the mid 90s) so educational institutions 
got what they wanted:

1. A language that students would be motivated by, being able to 
run programs in web browsers (which didn't turn out to work very 
well in reality). It was common for universities to use clean 
languages that nobody in the real world used.

2. A language that was simple, safe and had a garbage collector 
and provided all the mechanisms needed to teach CS and OO (Java 
was as close to Simula as you can get).

3. A language for which many educational books were being written 
(important when you select a curriculum).

Once you get educational institutions to force feed students with 
a language you win. I am not sure if Java would have survived 
without it.

For some reason Microsoft did not make that strategic move until 
much later. I think Bill Gates was the reason, MS pushed Visual 
Basic too much to be taken seriously… So eventually they had to 

collecting Windows-tax in the business environment.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 08:40:04 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 07:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:

 ...


 For some reason Microsoft did not make that strategic move 
 until much later. I think Bill Gates was the reason, MS pushed 
 Visual Basic too much to be taken seriously… So eventually they 

 keep collecting Windows-tax in the business environment.


An interesting thing for conspiracy theories is how close the new 
Window Runtime model is from Ext-VOS.

Ext-VOS was the next architecture of COM, based on the idea that 
all Windows languages would target it, as a common language 
runtime.

Along the way, they decided to create the CLR instead.

Now the going native wave that hit Microsoft, has made them 
create the Windows Runtime, having .NET compile to native code in 
Windows Phone 8 and create the .NET Native, the ahead-of-time 
native code compiler for .NET.

The main difference with Windows Native Runtime and the old 
Ext-VOS, is the use .NET metadata instead of COM type libraries.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2012/07/05/more-c-net-generics-history-the-msr-white-paper-from-mid-1999.aspx


Java might as well have been, what made them move away from the 
initial design.

--
Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 10:32:53 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

 Now the going native wave that hit Microsoft, has made them 
 create the Windows Runtime, having .NET compile to native code 
 in Windows Phone 8 and create the .NET Native, the 
 ahead-of-time native code compiler for .NET.


Yes, these moves are interesting to watch. Not sure how it will 
turn out unless Microsoft truly embrace cross-platform 
development.

On a related note I found these notes on the Go roadmap 
interesting:

http://dotgo.sourcegraph.com/post/99652962343/brad-fitzpatrick-on-the-future-of-the-go-programming

Go 1.4:
- precise GC for everything
- start of Android support

Go 1.5:
- concurrent GC with marginal pauses (15ms?)
- start of iOS support
- cache-friendly scheduler ("NUMA")
- tracing in browser (Chrome)

And people are working on Go->PNACL and Go->Javascript compilers…

I haven't really looked much at Go in the past two years, but it 
looks like D has roughly 18 months to get the GC up to speed or 
make programming without GC really comfy.

At some point quality of implementation, programmer productivity, 
tools and platform support matters more than semantic details if 
both language A and B can do roughly the same things.

IF the Go developers succeed in reaching their goals, which is a 
gamble. But neither Google or Microsoft lack resources or the 
motivation. So it all hangs on project management and strategic 
thinking I think. :)

Competition and choice is a good thing. We'll see.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 16:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 10:32:53 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

 Now the going native wave that hit Microsoft, has made them create the
 Windows Runtime, having .NET compile to native code in Windows Phone 8
 and create the .NET Native, the ahead-of-time native code compiler for
 .NET.


 Yes, these moves are interesting to watch. Not sure how it will turn out
 unless Microsoft truly embrace cross-platform development.

 On a related note I found these notes on the Go roadmap interesting:

 http://dotgo.sourcegraph.com/post/99652962343/brad-fitzpatrick-on-the-future-of-the-go-programming


 Go 1.4:
 - precise GC for everything
 - start of Android support

 Go 1.5:
 - concurrent GC with marginal pauses (15ms?)
 - start of iOS support
 - cache-friendly scheduler ("NUMA")
 - tracing in browser (Chrome)

 And people are working on Go->PNACL and Go->Javascript compilers…


I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't ever add 
generics.

So I guess, a better C it is.


 I haven't really looked much at Go in the past two years, but it looks
 like D has roughly 18 months to get the GC up to speed or make
 programming without GC really comfy.

 At some point quality of implementation, programmer productivity, tools
 and platform support matters more than semantic details if both language
 A and B can do roughly the same things.

 IF the Go developers succeed in reaching their goals, which is a gamble.
 But neither Google or Microsoft lack resources or the motivation. So it
 all hangs on project management and strategic thinking I think. :)

 Competition and choice is a good thing. We'll see.


They just got a victory today, as Microsoft is now bringing Docker to 
Windows, which uses Go quite heavily.

Although for the time being they are being silent on what languages will 
Microsoft be using.

Nick Stinemates from Docker

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8458382
"As a result, it will be a community/maintainer decision what language 
it's written in, but obviously we're heavily biased toward Go."

--
Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't 
 ever add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.


It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level 
language IMO.

But templates can always be added later. If Google manage to get 
a solid GC based runtime up, one might write a new front end for 
it. Just like people write new languages for JVM. (but it is 
still a big "if")


 They just got a victory today, as Microsoft is now bringing 
 Docker to Windows, which uses Go quite heavily.


Docker is a nice idea. Not sure where Microsoft is going with it, 
but they probably go for this to  make Azure competitive.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't ever
 add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.


 It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level language IMO.


I look at Go and see Oberon, hence my remark.

Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at currently is 
embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and being a portable assembler.

For everything else, there are better alternatives.

--
Paulo
Oct 15 2014
next sibling parent ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:15:11 +0200
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at currently is=20
 embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and being a portable
 assembler.


and it sux as portable assembler.
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:15:10 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at 
 currently is embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and 
 being a portable assembler.

 For everything else, there are better alternatives.


Portable libraries. It is a stable design that most languages can 
interface with, so you can generally not go wrong by writing 
libraries in C.

It is a pity that some cool libraries are C++ only (like 3D 
physics), but maybe automatic source-to-source translation can do 
well sometime in the future.
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:15:10 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 15.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim 
 =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
 wrote:

 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they 
 won't ever
 add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.


 It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level 
 language IMO.


 I look at Go and see Oberon, hence my remark.

 Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at 
 currently is embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and 
 being a portable assembler.

 For everything else, there are better alternatives.


Still..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCgzYcpFUI

Scott Meyers talk
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 20:29 schrieb eles:

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:15:10 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 15.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
 <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't ever
 add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.


 It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level
 language IMO.


 I look at Go and see Oberon, hence my remark.

 Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at currently is
 embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and being a portable
 assembler.

 For everything else, there are better alternatives.


 Still..

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCgzYcpFUI

 Scott Meyers talk


This is C++, I am speaking about C.

C++ is part of my "there are better alternatives" list.

--
Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:50:21 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 This is C++, I am speaking about C.

 C++ is part of my "there are better alternatives" list.


Scott Meyers pointed out that C is the most popular open source 
language still (which probably is true if you count lines of 
code), and that the popularity of C is important for the 
popularity of C++ today.

http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
Oct 15 2014
next sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 22:00 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:50:21 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 This is C++, I am speaking about C.

 C++ is part of my "there are better alternatives" list.


 Scott Meyers pointed out that C is the most popular open source language
 still (which probably is true if you count lines of code), and that the
 popularity of C is important for the popularity of C++ today.

 http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html


Ah ok.

Yes, I do have to agree.

However that is mostly caused by the animosity in open source world 
against C++.

I can still remember how it was to be on Gtkmm vs Gtk.

--
Paulo
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
Just for fun, some D tag stats from Stackoverflow for the last 
week:

C++: 2080 this week
Go: 96 this week
Rust: 58 this week
D: 25 this month

Or (roughly):

C++: 357x more questions
Go: 16x
Rust: 10x
Oct 15 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:37:19 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 Just for fun, some D tag stats from Stackoverflow for the last=20
 week:
=20
 C++: 2080 this week
 Go: 96 this week
 Rust: 58 this week
 D: 25 this month
=20
 Or (roughly):
=20
 C++: 357x more questions
 Go: 16x
 Rust: 10x


so, c++ is most complicated language, and D is so easy and nice that
people don't even asking questions.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 20:48:21 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 so, c++ is most complicated language, and D is so easy and nice 
 that people don't even asking questions.


Yeah, top stars on github this month for D:

libasync: 22 stars
vibe.d: 15
phobos: 10
druntime: 8
dash: 9

For Go:

pup: 1243 stars
inspeqtor: 856
docker: 743
gopherjs: 659
syncthing: 584

For C++:

cool-retro-term: 999 stars
node-webkit: 690
CppCon2014: 615
cling: 512
ricochet: 498

On github Go appears to be on the same number of stars as C++ and 
Python… so I guess this could mean it is popular among hobbyists. 
Ada projects have no stars...
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 23:13 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 20:48:21 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d
 wrote:

 .... Ada


 projects have no stars...


Who needs stars when working on an enterprise budget? :)

Besides, Ada never was an hobbyist language. Only after GNAT Core 
decided to release their compiler as GPL, universities decided to pay 
attention.

--
Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 21:29:23 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Who needs stars when working on an enterprise budget? :)


Yeah, these metrics are skewed, but it is interesting to see what 
kind of projects people get excited about in different languages.

I didn't expect Go to do so well on github. I found that 
surprising.


 Besides, Ada never was an hobbyist language. Only after GNAT 
 Core decided to release their compiler as GPL, universities 
 decided to pay attention.


Ada is "industrial", and comes through as a bit syntax heavy for 
casual use. Still, the feature set appears to fit well together 
when reading about it.

Go on the other hand comes through as a bit arcane and the 
defer/panic/recover error handling is kind of weird and the 
syntax for it does not indicate that it is about errors. Which I 
think is important to make distinct. So I have trouble liking Go 
when browsing Go code for the same reason I'd never want to do 
anything large in C. Then again, it took a while for me to get 
used to C-style braces after being used to languages like Pascal. 
So maybe it grows on you… (doubt it).

Not that I like regular try/catch exceptions either. A more 
efficient "transactional" approach to error-handling seems more 
attractive. A solution where you don't sprinkle error-handling 
code all over your codebase. It probably requires high-level 
language support if you want to avoid the extra  noise that 
"plague" current error handling solutions… :-/
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:








 consistency between 3rd party libraries. Java has spoiled me


While I agree with all this, I think the reason for Java's 
developing smoothness is not portability as such, but the 
unitarity of it.

This is exactly how Bjarne puts it: "Java is not portable over 
platforms, Java is *a platform*."

Which is quite true, might it be not interesting for some 
applications. In a way is just like one would brag about Windows 
apps portability on the grounds that all operating systems 
support Virtualbox...
Oct 15 2014
parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 07:31:45 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:








 consistency between 3rd party libraries. Java has spoiled me


 While I agree with all this, I think the reason for Java's 
 developing smoothness is not portability as such, but the 
 unitarity of it.

 This is exactly how Bjarne puts it: "Java is not portable over 
 platforms, Java is *a platform*."

 Which is quite true, might it be not interesting for some 
 applications. In a way is just like one would brag about 
 Windows apps portability on the grounds that all operating 
 systems support Virtualbox...



This is common to any language that offers a rich runtime that 
abstracts away over OS specific issues, while allowing you to 
jump into the OS when required to do so.

C and C++ fail at this, because C's notion of runtime is called 
UNIX and C++ followed along, to cater to the same crowd.

That standard runtime never managed into the language standard 
and instead became a standard of its own, POSIX.

With the caveat that not every OS out there implements POSIX 
(there are others besides Windows that don't), and those that do, 
don't have 100% the same version.

This is exactly the reason why C++ standardization group is now 
trying to get the same form of plaftorm abstractions into the 
standard, that other languages enjoy.

--
Paulo
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 14.10.2014 um 16:56 schrieb eles:

 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:

 Just a bunch of links:

 http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

 This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still be
 offered:

 http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/


 Hijack, also OT: using C++ without memory management

 http://engineering.adap.tv/listing/why-we-use-c-without-using-stl-or-boost/


But with buffer overruns and memory corruption.

--
Paulo
Oct 14 2014