errors in CACM column

errors in CACM column

[tmoran]

Robert Glass' Practical Programmer column argues that popular languages
are domain-independent (eg C), but good ones are domain-dependent (eg
Fortran).  He then says that Ada was designed to be domain-specific for
real-time, but was converted to "make a domain-independent sow's ear out
of a domain-specific silk purse."  My understanding is that is incorrect
as history.  He then says "...  and Ada died the kind of slow death that
PL/1 has."  This appears incorrect as current events, as, say, a glance at
comp.lang.ada vs comp.lang.pl1 shows.  My understanding is that Ada
started as domain-independent (or at least "everything the DOD wants
programmed) , and has migrated to the domain of "robust" programs.  Could
someone who knows please comment (preferably to CACM Letters)?

Re: errors in CACM column

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <4Ejsa.170716$gK.261856@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, tmoran@acm.org writes:
> Robert Glass' Practical Programmer column argues that popular languages
> are domain-independent (eg C), but good ones are domain-dependent (eg
> Fortran).  He then says that Ada was designed to be domain-specific for
> real-time, but was converted to "make a domain-independent sow's ear out
> of a domain-specific silk purse."  My understanding is that is incorrect
> as history.  He then says "...  and Ada died the kind of slow death that
> PL/1 has."  This appears incorrect as current events, as, say, a glance at
> comp.lang.ada vs comp.lang.pl1 shows.

I have been told by a PL/I expert that the real PL/I discussions
take place on a mailing list rather than in a newsgroup.