TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:28:52 -0700
text/plain (39 lines)
From: Bob Leif
To: Geoff Bull et al.

Geoff Bull said it on his bottom line, "Personally, I think we should take
Ada, call it something else, and claim we have just invented the next great
thing." Your suggestion is commonly referred to as repackaging, which should
amuse this audience. The new language (Ada'Next) should be XML_Script. We
keep Ada semantics and only modify the syntax to match XML were necessary.
Thus, we leverage off of XML and retain a one-to-one correspondence to Ada.
This would permit the reuse of existing Ada 95 compilers. Fortunately, XML
ends items with their name like Ada.

The XML programmer would create XML_Script in strongly typed frames. It
should NOT be text based. All familiar Ada blocks would be frames. For
instance, the two most common outer (containing) frames would be package
specifications and bodies. The frames as with Ada can be nested inside one
another. Much of the language could be fill in the blanks. ASIS tools can be
made to facilitate this type of programming. In short, we would have an
excellent tool for programming macros for commercial products like
word-processors and spreadsheets.

I hope that we can discuss this and other interesting possibilities at the
Commercializing Ada Workshop at SigAda '98.

P.S. I will be on travel for the next 10 days and will not for that period
be able to participate in any subsequent discussion of this topic for that

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Geoff Bull
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 7:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Clarification: Ada/Java
> cheers
> gb