Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!poe!larryc
From: larryc@poe.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Carroll)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: A Pascal Subset of Ada (was: Why Ada is Failing Socially)
Message-ID: <1991Jun25.022849.18078@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 25 Jun 91 02:28:49 GMT
Sender: usenet@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (For NNTP so rrn will be able to post)
Distribution: comp.lang.ada
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab, AEG/FIST
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: poe

Someone said something like
> A better comparison would be between Pascal & Ada.

I came to Ada from a Pascal background, & never understood why people thought
it a complex or difficult language.  I was writing working code within a
week.  Within a month the basics had become engrained in my thinking so I
automatically used syntax correctly most of the time.  I started using
features like packages, which I thought (& still think) was a marvelous
invention & had absolutely no trouble with.  Other parts of Ada caused me
more problems, & I've never used tasking.

One of the biggest mistakes of AJPO (or whoever made the decision) was to
disallow Ada subsets.  I think they should have allowed ONE subset, 
corresponding roughly to Pascal and including packages.  We would have had 
inexpensive & commercially useful compilers much earlier, & disposed of the 
"Ada is huge" mindset.

As a footnote, when I later learned C I organized programs as much like 
packages as I could with the limited capabilites of C.  I ended up with 
patterns that look a bit like C++.