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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,f96f757d5586710a X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: timd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Tim Dugan) Subject: Re: PL/I Versus Ada (Was: Arianne ...) Date: 1996/08/21 Message-ID: <4vfrhs$mi2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 175522519 references: <4up8pi$lvi@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <32106B34.57DB@lmtas.lmco.com> organization: NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800 newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 Date: 1996-08-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Richard Riehle wrote: > >[...] >2) If PL/I is so excellent, why was it rejected during the > evaluation process that led to the development of Ada? Good question. I guess there were reasons. They probably underestimated the costs involved ith going to a totally new language. It might have been good to impose the new features on PL/I and remove the bad ones. It could have been called PL/Ada! :) Analogous to evolving from C to C++... But perhaps this is also a government procurement problem. Might this have given an unfair advantage to those who already built PL/I compilers? > For that matter, why was C rejected? Lots of reasons...but mostly the lack of type safety and threads, I think. C++ has "fixed" a lot of the problems, though. -t -- Tim Dugan mailto:timd@ghgcorp.com http://www.ghgcorp.com/timd