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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-21 10:55:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.airnews.net!cabal12.airnews.net!usenet From: "John R. Strohm" Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:44:47 -0600 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Message-ID: <43B02AD03610D83F.D36E6CB7804F7EE5.4DA1FEA168FBBFF9@lp.airnews.net> X-Orig-Message-ID: References: <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com> <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com> <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com> <3E550205.1010702@cox.net> Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri Feb 21 12:53:42 2003 NNTP-Posting-Host: !\]re1k-V_n*$lW (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4395 comp.lang.ada:34365 Date: 2003-02-21T12:44:47-06:00 List-Id: "Anders Wirzenius" wrote in message news:ZCj5a.24$m%2.4@read3.inet.fi... > > "Donald L. Dobbs" 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.