Content deleted Content added
Jerryobject (talk | contribs) m Disambiguated term "Pascal". |
|||
Line 62:
----
:Make that C, C++, Forth, FORTRAN, Java, Objective
----
Line 274:
:Extract from: http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/history/holwg-93/2.htm (source: portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1057816&type=pdf)
:# Without exception, the following languages were found by the evaluators to be inappropriate to serve as base languages for a development of the common language: [[FORTRAN]], [[COBOL]], [[TACPOL]], [[CMS-2]], [[JOVIAL]] J-73, JOVIAL J-3B, [[SIMULA]] 67, [[ALGOL 60]], and [[CORAL 66]].
:# Proposals should be solicited from appropriate language designers for modification efforts using any of the languages, [[Pascal (programming language)|Pascal]], [[PL/I]], or [[ALGOL 68]] as a base language from which to start. These efforts should be directed toward the production of a language that satisfied the DoD set of language requirements for embedded computer applications.
:Ada - DoD HOLWG, [[William A. Whitaker|Col Wm Whitaker]], 1993
I don't know what the complete list of functionality originally from ALGOL 68 is. Maybe concurrency, operators, overloading & strong typing. These were mostly missing from [[ALGOL 60]]. So I changed the "Influenced by:" to refer to ALGOL 68 directly.
Line 306:
== 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 (programming language)|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)
Line 391:
== Language constructs ==
I seem a lack for "Language constructs" or "Syntax and semantics" for this article, something that is found on other articles like [[
: You find this info in the award wining [[wikibooks:Ada_Programming]]. The question here is: how much syntax and semantic is encyclopaedic and when do we cross line into advertising or micro-tutorials. And personally I think some articles already crossed that line --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]] <sup>[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]</sup> 06:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||