Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Wirth programming language: agree, instead of Wirth, emphasize NOT like Pascal - →Comments: noted that more text is needed (not less) for general readers |
||
Line 303:
== Wirth programming language ==
Ada is not a Wirth programming language. Wirth did not create it. Ada is not a Wirth-like language; languages are vastly dissimilar to people. Ada may be a Wirthian language, but there's no agreement on that[http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Typing]. I fail to see this as a useful or clear category, and would like to see a better name, a clear definition of what a Wirthian programming language is, and to start out with [[ALGOL W]], [[Pascal]], and other self-evidently Wirthian programming languages before adding Ada.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:* ''10-Nov-2008:'' I tend to agree with not labeling Ada as a "Wirth-like" language, and so I had put the wording "extended from Pascal and other languages" rather than "based on Pascal" (as in October). Ada is a comb-structured language (4 teeth: "Declare-Begin-Exception-End"), where the semicolon ends a statement, and that is radically different from Pascal separators, where semicolons before an "END" have killed Pascal compilations (zillions of them). Because Ada is so much larger, broader than Pascal, I don't think any ''Wirth-like'' connections are very helpful for software readers, but perhaps instead, emphasize some major ways how Ada is NOT like Pascal. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
== Real World Projects in Ada ==
Line 336 ⟶ 337:
::Yet another completely vacuous statement.
Lots of verbiage, no more content than saying "Ada has conventional end-of-line comments introduced by '--'". --[[User:Macrakis|macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 03:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
* ''10-Nov-2008:'' I was attempting to add more detail for general readers, by adding phrases about the parallel to English--with the commentary notation. Also, the issues about unclosed-comments and nested-comments (comments within commented-out code) are major aspects of comment-syntax design. Noting the "parsing of the language as a [[context-free grammar]]" is a brief note emphasizing that the language design is very much concerned with the compiler. There are also several other aspects that I omitted for brevity; however, I think expanding (not reducing) the text would be a better avenue: adding a whole article section about Ada comment syntax and its impact, where readers would be expecting several sentences about the use of comments. I am thankful for the above analysis: without that suggestion to use fewer words, I might never have realized that many more words were needed. It can be so easy to view other people's concerns as "vacuous" when people forget about viewpoints of beginners or laymen. I have worked on clarifying many articles that people had labeled as "too technical" and needed more basic details for general readers. However, the best approach might be to write an intro article ("[[Introduction to Ada]]") as has been done with other detailed subjects. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
| |||