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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-22 21:02:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030131 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language References: <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com> <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com> <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com> <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net> <1045769690.126389@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1045839419.823502@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3E568EF3.A244212A@adaworks.com> <3E569E8C.4050709@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <3E569E8C.4050709@cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1CY5a.280$oY6.106@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 05:02:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.251.13 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1045976573 162.83.251.13 (Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:02:53 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:02:53 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4435 comp.lang.ada:34459 Date: 2003-02-23T05:02:53+00:00 List-Id: Donald L. Dobbs wrote: > the S.A. wrote an air-tight spec that the coder was to rigorously implement. I've rarely seen domain experts who are capable of producing air-tight specs. They have several problems. They speak in the language of their domain, which is not the language of the programmer. They know their domain so well that they fail to explain the things which are obvious to them. And because they do not think like programmers, their specs rarely cover the corner-cases, so that they leak badly rather than being air-tight. In fact, they often have no answer for what to do in these cases, because they have never seen them!