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,ee41f292779851e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-23 03:50:31 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada explanation? Date: 23 Jan 1995 05:50:31 -0600 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Message-ID: <3g0567$g3@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <9501181627.AA19623@eurocontrol.de> <3fnhgv$4mh@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <3fsiv3$mtg@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Date: 1995-01-23T05:50:31-06:00 List-Id: In article , Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760 <9758-26353> wrote: >dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) > > > Oddly, C++ is indeed a language being designed by committee (AND > > subcommittees!). > >For an explanation of how C++ was designed and how the C++ standards >committee works see : Stroustrup: ``The Design and Evolution of C++'' >Addison Wesley, 1994. > Been there, done that. Good book, by the way -- I recommend anybody working in programming read it...anyway on with it... Excerpt from section 5.4: "The _committee_ now has something like 250 memebers, out of which something like 70 turn up at meetings..." To my knowledge (although Bjarne is certainly a closer source than I :-), there were a few subcommittees also that provided recommendations on various topics like RTTI and namespaces. My point is that Ada is frequently maligned as a language "designed by committee", a phrase that drips with disgust from many ignorant software developers. The truth of the matter is the ISO standardization process of both languages is similar: both are on the fast track, both were open to public review (although, IMHO, the process of improving Ada was much more open, providing free access to reference manual drafts, requirements specs, formal language comments, and the rationale). Ada started the revision in 1988 and completed in 1994, a total of six years. C++ started in 1990 (March, 1990, according to the D&E book) and is anticipated to be approved in 1996. My own personal opinion is there won't be something until '97, but I emphasize that's MY opinion. -- Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran? Ada95 _might_ be for you! For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command: "finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)