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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,f96f757d5586710a X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: arbuckj@aa.wl.com@ Subject: Re: PL/I Versus Ada (Was: Arianne ...) Date: 1996/08/23 Message-ID: <4vkfkh$5f6@reeve.research.aa.wl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 175969915 references: <4t9vdg$jfb@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <4tiu6e$kpm@news2.cais.com> <4up8pi$lvi@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <32106B34.57DB@lmtas.lmco.com> organization: Warner-Lambert Parke-Davis Research reply-to: arbuckj@aa.wl.com newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 Date: 1996-08-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In , Richard Riehle writes: > > >I changed the caption for the subject since this thread has >become more one of advocacy than issues related to Arianne. >snipped... >2) If PL/I is so excellent, why was it rejected during the > evaluation process that led to the development of Ada? For > that matter, why was C rejected? If memory serves me correctly, one of the concerns during the evaluation period was that PL/I (and C and other languages) allowed you to shoot yourself in the foot to some extent. The evaluators were looking to decrease programming errors so the decision was made to create a new language with more checks and restrictions, hence ADA was born (I not familar enough with ADA to say whether or not it met that goal). >3) I have heard that there is an object-oriented version of PL/I > under development. True or False? When? > It is my understanding that this is true based on informal information at a session in a conference I went to. >snipped... John Arbuckle arbuckj@aa.wl.com