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: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,87f6968ed41c9df1
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++           robin)
Subject: Re: Multiple reasons for failure of Ariane 5 (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not
 an exception?)
Date: 1996/08/22
Message-ID: <4vgkt1$s2v@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 175827549
expires: 1 November 1996 00:00:00 GMT
references: <Dv45EJ.8r@fsa.bris.ac.uk> <kdk9vs9cln.fsf@henning.camb>
 <4ta0iu$kks@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <4u538f$9q6@hacgate2.hac.com>
 <4u6723$kp2@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <dewar.839392100@schonberg>
 <Dvspqs.3ry@thomsoft.com> <dewar.839592590@schonberg>
 <4uibvh$1p76@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
 <Pine.GSO.3.92.960815090506.20435B-100000@nunic.nu.edu>
organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1
nntp-posting-user: rav
Date: 1996-08-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


	Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> writes:

	>On 10 Aug 1996 dwnoon@ibm.net wrote:

	>> Combined with being a better FORTRAN than FORTRAN and a better
	>> Pascal than Pascal, I guess it's also a better Ada than Ada.

	>  I have programmed in PL/I (when it was still PL/1)


---PL/I has always been "PL/I".  From the first
implementation to the introduction of the standard, to now.

	>as well as
	>  Ada. I not the slightest doubt about the improvement of PL/I
	>  over its predecessors.  However, Ada is clearly superior to
	>  PL/I as a software engineering language. It is even a better
	>  programming language.

---Not really, when people have to ask how to do 
a square root [in Ada].

	> I could go into detail about the model
	>  for pointers,

---You seem not to be aware of the DEFINE STRUCTURE
statement and the strongly-typed pointer facilities of
PL/I for Windows 95/NT, OS/2 and AIX.

	> or the frailty of the DO WHILE construct, but

---DO WHILE is one of the structured constructs.

	>  On the other hand, I would rather see people using PL/I for
	>  a serious project than C.  And I have heard there is an effort
	>  to release an Object-oriented version of PL/I in the near
	>  future.  That might actually make PL/I a viable alternative
	>  to C++.

---It already is.