From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b0123581076a0cf3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-12 02:04:01 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!nac.no!nntp-oslo.uninett.no!naggum.no!erik From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada ad in Embedded Systems Programming stinks Date: 11 Sep 1994 21:48:06 UT Organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313 Message-ID: <19940911.4965@naggum.no> References: <1994Sep1.084046.21595@sei.cmu.edu> <344u9q$di5@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <347idh$15ss@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <34tu91$139u@source.asset.com> <34usma$hti@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: naggum.no Date: 1994-09-11T21:48:06+00:00 List-Id: | That seems the best compromise. After all, remember that the user who is | most likely to need further help is also the user least likely to be able | to read the RM. If you really know the RM well, you shouldn't be making | errors in the first place, and you certainly should be able to figure | them out :-) kidding aside, I think this is a harmful view, because it assumes that those who are experts in a particular area of the language will also be experts in _all_ areas, and while possibly not _obviously_ wrong, this nevertheless has the unfortunate side effect of discouraging people from exploring new areas. this is what happens with C and C++, for instance, where once you get some particular way of doing something to work, you are not likely to look into ill-described alternatives. Ada should encourage programmers to become better programmers, not more "get it to work, dammit" programmers. programmers who _don't_ have readily available copies of the reference manual for the language(s) and libraries they use are a dangerous breed. # -- Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer.