Re: Here we go again...

Re: Here we go again...

[Lao Xiao Hai]

Concering Dale's message, below,  if anyone knows the authors or can
find
their email addresses, we should try to update them on the current
status
of the language.  The ignorance expressed in their work is not so
unusual for
this kind of book.  I recently tracked down another author, who I will
not
name, and received a thanks for being brought up-to-date.   Most authors

do not want to publish incorrect information, it seems.

Richard Riehle

dale wrote:

> From
>    The Engineering of Software
>    Hamlet & Maybee, Addison Wesley, -2001-!
>
>    "Ada is Pascal based, but it is a complex language
>     designed by committee for the military, and that's
>     at least three strikes against it."
>
> Also says that Ada is still mandated for use by the U.S.
> Dept. of Defense, and that it is not well supported on
> P.C.s
>
> Sigh.
>
> Dale

Re: Here we go again...

[Dale Stanbrough]

Pat Rogers wrote:

> > I've already contacted Dick Hamlet at Portland State Uni and
> > made him aware of these problems.
> 
> What was his response?


He is going to keep notes for the 2nd edition. Unfortunately it's
another book that propagates the myth until then.


Dale

Re: Here we go again...

[Ken Garlington]

You can also leave feedback via the Addison Wesley Longman web site at

http://www.awl.com

Do a catalog search using the information below, then select the book and
use the "book feedback" link.

Engineering of Software, The: A Technical Guide for the Individual
Dick Hamlet, Portland State University
Joe Maybee, Xerox

Copyright 2001, 416 pp.
Cloth format
ISBN 0-201-70103-0


"Lao Xiao Hai" <laoxhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A0B6C69.19034755@ix.netcom.com...
: Concering Dale's message, below,  if anyone knows the authors or can
: find
: their email addresses, we should try to update them on the current
: status
: of the language.  The ignorance expressed in their work is not so
: unusual for
: this kind of book.  I recently tracked down another author, who I will
: not
: name, and received a thanks for being brought up-to-date.   Most authors
:
: do not want to publish incorrect information, it seems.
:
: Richard Riehle
:
: dale wrote:
:
: > From
: >    The Engineering of Software
: >    Hamlet & Maybee, Addison Wesley, -2001-!
: >
: >    "Ada is Pascal based, but it is a complex language
: >     designed by committee for the military, and that's
: >     at least three strikes against it."
: >
: > Also says that Ada is still mandated for use by the U.S.
: > Dept. of Defense, and that it is not well supported on
: > P.C.s
: >
: > Sigh.
: >
: > Dale
:

Re: Here we go again...

[Pat Rogers]

"dale" <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
news:dale-750E42.14501510112000@news.rmit.edu.au...

<snip>

> I've already contacted Dick Hamlet at Portland State Uni and
> made him aware of these problems.

What was his response?

Here we go again...

[dale]

From
   The Engineering of Software
   Hamlet & Maybee, Addison Wesley, -2001-!


   "Ada is Pascal based, but it is a complex language
    designed by committee for the military, and that's
    at least three strikes against it."


Also says that Ada is still mandated for use by the U.S.
Dept. of Defense, and that it is not well supported on
P.C.s


Sigh.


Dale

Re: Here we go again...

[dale]

Richard Riehle wrote:

> Concering Dale's message, below,  if anyone knows the authors or can
> find
> their email addresses, we should try to update them on the current
> status
> of the language.  The ignorance expressed in their work is not so
> unusual for
> this kind of book.  I recently tracked down another author, who I will
> not
> name, and received a thanks for being brought up-to-date.   Most authors
> 
> do not want to publish incorrect information, it seems.
> 
> Richard Riehle


I've already contacted Dick Hamlet at Portland State Uni and 
made him aware of these problems. 



Dale

Re: Here we go again...

[gdemont]

[ESR]

> Strangely enough my impression of him is that he thinks that terseness
> is the same as efficiency.

In fact, did this guy really _program_ something ?

> It is impossible to convince him that the wordiness of ada boost
> productivity. Perhaps this has something to do with his - in my not very
> humble opinion- rather simplistic political beliefs.

Maybe he is just too old. I'm not age-racist, but with computing
persons suddenly block, that for the rest of their life. Some "halt"
instruction happened with him between a PDP-10 and a dusty C or COBOL
compiler...
_____________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://members.nbci.com/gdemont/


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Here we go again...

[Marin David Condic]

"Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" wrote:

> Strangely enough my impression of him is that he thinks that terseness
> is the same as efficiency.
>

Chalk one up to "Invincible Ignorance".

Better to ignore those who are prejudiced against Ada and concentrate on the
educating of young minds who are starting out in the world of software
engineering. They have not yet formed their prejudices and will be willing
to listen and learn.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/
Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m
Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/

    "Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey
    and car keys to teenage boys."

        --   P. J. O'Rourke
======================================================================

Re: Here we go again...

[Juergen Pfeifer]

> BTW: Has anyone tried to convince ESR to remove his crap
> from The New Hackers Dictionary?
>
I just did it. I know ESR as peer ncurses hacker when he was more active in
this project around 1994-1995, long before his public appearance as OSS
guru. So at least he will listen what I told him and perhaps he will see the
opportunity to tell the GNAT story as a success story for free software.

J�rgen

Re: Here we go again...

[Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen]

Jan Kroken wrote:
> 
> BTW: Has anyone tried to convince ESR to remove his crap
> from The New Hackers Dictionary?


I have.

Strangely enough my impression of him is that he thinks that terseness
is the same as efficiency.

It is impossible to convince him that the wordiness of ada boost
productivity. Perhaps this has something to do with his - in my not very
humble opinion- rather simplistic political beliefs.


Greetings,

Re: Here we go again...

[Robert Love]

>>>>> "gdemont" == gdemont  <gdemont@my-deja.com> writes:

    gdemont> [ESR]
    >> Strangely enough my impression of him is that he thinks that
    >> terseness is the same as efficiency.

    gdemont> In fact, did this guy really _program_ something ?

Most Linux users get their mail from an ISP via Fetchmail--a program
that ESR wrote and maintains.  Newest version just came out this week
so its actively being maintained.

-- 
=============================================================
| Support Signature Minimalism                              |
=============================================================

Re: Here we go again...

[Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen]

gdemont@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> [ESR]
> 
> > Strangely enough my impression of him is that he thinks that terseness
> > is the same as efficiency.
> 
> In fact, did this guy really _program_ something ?

Yes. Visit his home page. I suppose it should be easy to find.


Greetings,

Re: Here we go again...

[Laurent Guerby]

"Juergen Pfeifer" <juergen.pfeifer@gmx.net> writes:
> > BTW: Has anyone tried to convince ESR to remove his crap
> > from The New Hackers Dictionary?
> I just did it. I know ESR as peer ncurses hacker when he was more active in
> this project around 1994-1995, long before his public appearance as OSS
> guru. So at least he will listen what I told him and perhaps he will see the
> opportunity to tell the GNAT story as a success story for free software.

I wrote to him a while ago, and responded to him on LinuxToday
recently see the comments of:

<http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-21-006-04-NW-CY>

but never had any reply. I hope you'll have more success ;-).

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Re: Here we go again...

[Robert Dewar]

In article <3A1A2085.287ADB7C@mail.utexas.edu>,
  "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> People don't seem to stop and think about how asinine it is to
> use "designed by committee" as an attempted slur in the world
> of technology.


Actually I disagree, I think that design by committee is
probably often a bad thing in programming language design.
Certainly that's what we decided for Ada, which is why we
did NOT use the approach of design by committee for Ada!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Here we go again...

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> In article <3A1A2085.287ADB7C@mail.utexas.edu>,
>   "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > People don't seem to stop and think about how asinine it is to
> > use "designed by committee" as an attempted slur in the world
> > of technology.
>
> Actually I disagree, I think that design by committee is
> probably often a bad thing in programming language design.
> Certainly that's what we decided for Ada, which is why we
> did NOT use the approach of design by committee for Ada!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Condemning anything on the basis of the "designed by committee"
statement will not serve your best interests. If you must condemn,
do it on the merits of actual facts, rather than generalizations.
Otherwise you will end up foolishly dismissing things that may in fact
serve you well.

--
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Here we go again...

[Tucker Taft]

"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> 
> dale wrote:
> 
> >    "Ada is Pascal based, but it is a complex language
> >     designed by committee for the military, and that's
> >     at least three strikes against it."
> 
> My standard response to the "designed by committee" dis is to ask the
> speaker whether s/he would ever consider buying an automobile, riding an
> airplane, or working in a building that was designed by a committee.
> People don't seem to stop and think about how asinine it is to use
> "designed by committee" as an attempted slur in the world of technology.

Ada wasn't designed by committee, for what its worth.
If someone thinks it was designed by committee, they haven't
met Jean Ichbiah (or me, for that matter ;-).

> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Commercial Division, AverStar (formerly Intermetrics)
(http://www.averstar.com/services/IT_consulting.html)  Burlington, MA  USA

Re: Here we go again...

[Bobby D. Bryant]

dale wrote:

>    "Ada is Pascal based, but it is a complex language
>     designed by committee for the military, and that's
>     at least three strikes against it."

My standard response to the "designed by committee" dis is to ask the
speaker whether s/he would ever consider buying an automobile, riding an
airplane, or working in a building that was designed by a committee.
People don't seem to stop and think about how asinine it is to use
"designed by committee" as an attempted slur in the world of technology.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Re: Here we go again...

[Robert Dewar]

In article <3A1AB3C9.19C85FBD@home.com>,
  "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote:
> Condemning anything on the basis of the "designed by
> committee" statement will not serve your best interests.

Well we are specifically talking about programming languages
here. I clearly limited my concerns about committee design to
this field, and no one should for a moment assume that my
statement has any wider scope.

So, if you think that design by committee can be effective
for programming languages, please give examples. As we have
said, Ada most certainly is NOT such an example, neither is
any of the other languages in most common use (C, C++, Java ..)
They are committee *refined* perhaps, but certainly not
committee *designed*.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.