From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 9 Feb 93 16:34:22 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com !tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel Message-ID: <1993Feb9.163422.6736@mksol.dseg.ti.com> List-Id: In obry@flash.bellcore.com ( Pascal Obry) writes: >Fred, >> I'm curious about this. Perhaps someone who agrees with this can >> explain to me why a language restriction is better than, say, an >> organizational policy restriction. Personally, I would consider a >> language that allows me to do things in special cases to be better >> than one which does not, even if the 'things' are not necessarily a >> good idea in the usual case. >No flamewar here. >The answer could be : We need language restrictions because we are *only* > humans. And even with a strong policy restrictions > we can't be sure to stay in the straight line. And worst > we can't be sure that others would stay ... >So after while, how will you look at the software ? The same way I look at it now. Well written and maintainable software is well written and maintainable software. Poorly written and unmaintainable software is poorly written and unmaintainable software. Either can (and probably has been and will again) be produced in pretty much any language. I simply don't see this as a convincing argument. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.