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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!newsfeed1.swip.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:16:17 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety !
References: <lmj8s6$hhp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <e41c64cc-af26-4971-9db3-aec0fb4f5893@googlegroups.com>
 <9qednXOIGNDuLQXORVn_vwA@giganews.com>
In-Reply-To: <9qednXOIGNDuLQXORVn_vwA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <539961d1$0$6613$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jun 2014 10:16:17 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7f5cccb8.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=AD;gjPnY;EF02Sh8E_NfIA4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKVlijeZK>]HAPCY\c7>ejVHJa]T8?7@]:C:W7<fkSjWRO
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20249
Date: 2014-06-12T10:16:17+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/06/14 21:39, Peter Chapin wrote:
> So I think it's a good thing
> that Apple is trying to create a language that suits their purposes and
> that focuses on safety and security.

Swift suits Apple's purposes, Go acts in the same role for Google.
Is that our purpose, too? In what one might think is their market?

Once Apple's (Google's) produce becomes adopted by independent
organizations, then once again these will loose independence.
Controlling language, on behalf of We The People, e.g.,
will be political at best, and ISO can be used as an instrument
of hypocrisy, pushing voluminous "standardization" documents
though ECMA, first. (ISO-Swift, ISO-Go)

A difference to 1974 will be that the

   "minimal number of common, modern, high order
    computer programming languages"

is now equal to the number of big (well, rich) companies in the
computer market. They are in control, irrespective of the merits
and potential compatibilities of their language efforts.

http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/history/holwg-93/1.htm#justification