Talk:Ada (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:56, 8 May 2006

Revision as of 12:21, 9 May 2006

Line 170:

This sounds rather dubious to me. No cites, no specifics, simply an assertion. What sort of a type system? Strong, weak, optional type declarations or mandatory, duck-typing; any sort of type inference? For that matter, are there higher-order functions or any functional characteristics at all?

: The type discipline is described inside the info box (Typing discipline: static, strong, safe, nominative). As for the describing the type system - we should probable say more. Over at wikibooks we have two <ref>[[wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Subtypes]]</ref> <ref>[[Wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Types]]</ref> rather large articles on Ada's type system. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Ariane 5 section a top level section? That should really be a subheader of a (currently non-existent) Criticism section (I think a criticism section is definitely missing- the first time I ever heard of Ada was when some folks were criticising it). It's also kinda weasel-wordy. While we are talking about the headers, why the deuce is there an "Ada Wikis" section? That should be a subheader of External links, as none of them are notable enough to have their own article- and that's just in addition to the peculiarity of linking to Wiktionary definitions at all, much less in an "Ada Wikis" top level header. The See also section needs cleanup as well: they are not supposed to be red links. Move'em over into Ext. links as well. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Ariane 5 section a top level section? That should really be a subheader of a (currently non-existent) Criticism section (I think a criticism section is definitely missing- the first time I ever heard of Ada was when some folks were criticising it). It's also kinda weasel-wordy.

: Read again: We are defeding Ada as the Ariane 5 failure was a rooted in mis-management. Neither the programmers nor the programming language are to blame. No criticism on Ada at all is deserved here. It is also one of the most changes sections as feelings run high here. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Ariane 5 section a top level section? That should really be a subheader of a (currently non-existent) Criticism section (I think a criticism section is definitely missing- the first time I ever heard of Ada was when some folks were criticising it). It's also kinda weasel-wordy. While we are talking about the headers, why the deuce is there an "Ada Wikis" section? That should be a subheader of External links, as none of them are notable enough to have their own article- and that's just in addition to the peculiarity of linking to Wiktionary definitions at all, much less in an "Ada Wikis" top level header. The See also section needs cleanup as well: they are not supposed to be red links. Move'em over into Ext. links as well. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

: Yes - quite a few links here. Cleaning up is indeed needed. I also noted external links in "see also". --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

--[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)