Re: status of PL/I as a viable language

["John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>]

"Anders Wirzenius" <anders.wirzenius@pp.qnet.fi> wrote in message
news:ZCj5a.24$m%2.4@read3.inet.fi...
>
> "Donald L. Dobbs" <donaldldobbs@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E550205.1010702@cox.net...
> >
> >
> > Richard Riehle wrote:
> ...
> > > such as the F-22.   The fact that developers can find a way to screw
it
> > > up does not detract from the value of the language.   If they can make
> > > a mess using a language with the rigorous controls built into Ada,
> > > imagine the magnitude of the mess they could make with, say, C++.
> > > And, no, PL/I would not help with a system this large and complex.
> > >
> > > Richard Riehle
> > >
> > Richard,
> >
> > You're right in that good (really good) programmers can produce
> > successful code not matter what tools (languages) they have to tolerate
> > while poor programmers (or at least poorly trained) will screw it up no
> > matter how good or bulletproof the language.  Your ATC example
> > undoubtedly proves the point.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >    -- Don.
>
> The masters are masters and the poor are poor.
> The majority of the programmers are just mediocre human beings like me
(and you).
> The interesting question could be:
> What are the tools that helps us to do a good job?

Some years ago, in a discussion with a coworker, I opined that there were
three levels of programmer: novice (or apprentice), journeyman, master.  He
added a fourth: wizard.

The REAL interesting question is: what are the appropriate tools that help
each level to do a "good" job?

The related question is: to what extent can the tools of e.g. a wizard be
made SAFELY available to a novice?

The overriding question is: how do we structure our projects and our project
teams and our toolsets to allow each level of programmer to achieve maximum
productivity?

That last question, incidentally, reflects back on the Joel Aron/Harlan
Mills "Chief Programmer Team" concept.  It is well-known in computing that
there may be as much as two orders of magnitude difference between
programmers.  It is utter idiocy to expect a low-end programmer to perform
at the level of a Chief Programmer, and it is even more idiotic to restrain
a Chief Programmer so he is only allowed to perform at the level of a
low-end coder.