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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1088a239f6f264d7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: language design lessons learned from Ada Date: 1997/10/09 Message-ID: <343D1063.5B2D@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 279189795 References: <3437CB1D.23D@udel.edu> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-10-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Arthur Evans Jr wrote: > > As a member of the team that wrote the Ada-9X Requirements Document, I'm > familiar with that corpus. The data all existed in electronic form at > SEI at one time; I expect they still do. However, that's not what I'm > looking for. > > Perhaps I didn't adequately explain my desires. What I want is thoughts > of those who were involved in the design process, now that it's over and > there's been time to think about how it all came out. What is good > about the design, and what could have been done better? What have we > learned that other language designers should be aware of? While I don't know of any repository of comments on Ada-95, many of the suggestions incorporated into Ada-95 where vigorously debated during the design process. The discussions of the suggestions should cast more light than the suggestions themselves on the lessons learned (or not learned :-( ) from Ada 83. > Art Evans -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org