<language> broken

<language> broken

[Fernando D. Mato Mira]

Fernando Mato Mira wrote:

> [For example, I can think the Eiffel syntax is `philosophically' broken, but
> as `infix' syntaxes go, it is not. And it's a good language (I programmed

Correction. There's one thing broken. The Subject Oriented syntax, but as Eiffel
was started in '85, I guess that is understandable.

Ada 95 got this one right. Unfortunately, the semantics qualify as `multiply
broken' regarding this issue:

1. They thought about multiple dispatch, and they broke it on purpose.
2. If you specialize on more than one parameter, it should be the same type
specifier
     for all of them, i.e. only applicable to predicates, copying, arithmetic and
things like that,
     not useful most of the times one wants several specializers.
3. Worse of all, instead of just adopting a left-to-right precedence rule, one that
looks very
     ugly was added, increasing the complexity of a document that is already big
enough.

In '95, at VRAI we refocused our application from AI-oriented to (soft) real-time.
I grabbed the 9X specs, and the initial excitement turned to dissapointment (the
prototype was in CLOS). Moving would have not only meant losing a lot in
flexibility, but, worse of all, we would move only from being third-class to
second-class citizens (SGI platform).
And I would have rather dedicate the extra effort to CL. So after a little
successful experience, and given
the simpler requirements, we went with C++.
Needless to say, the project became a death march. You don't go with C++ unless you
can afford paying 5-10 times more for a lot less functionality.

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html