Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is there ))

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

Israel Raj T <israelrt@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<nc6istc54r252g98893pn2itn3875birhm@4ax.com>...
> 
> Yes, you are absolutely right Dale....
> 
> At least 21 people and TWO committees were involved.
> 
> "In 1975 the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) established 
> a   A High
> Order Language Working Group (HOLWG) ...to formulate the > DoD
> requirements for high order languages

Requirements /= language design

> "A high-order language working group (HOLWG) was formed with Whitaker
> as chairman. Other representatives included Cmdr. Jack Cooper, the
> Navy representative (along with Bernie Zempolich and Robert Kahane),
> Bill Carlson of ARPA, Maj. Tom Jarrell of the Air Force, Paul Cohen of
> the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), Lt. Col. Schamber of the
> Marine Corps, and Maj. Breault of the Army."
> http://www.adapower.com/adafaq.htm

The function of this committee was to organize the effort
and coordinate the work of the design teams, HOLWG did NOT
do the language design.

> "The Ada design team was led by Jean D. Ichbiah and has included
> Berned Krieg-Bruechner,  Brain A. Wichmann, Henry F. Ledgard,
> Jean-Cluade Heliard, Jean-Loup Gailly, Jean-Ryanmond  Abrial, John G.
> P. Barnes, Mike Woodger, Olivier Roubine, Paul N. Hilfinger, and
> Robert Firth. "
> http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/history/histada.txt

There is a big difference between a team and a committee.
The Superbowl cannot be won by a single player, but it 
also cannot be won by a commitee (see my letter to GCN
on this issue :-)


> "Dear Lord Lytton 
> For some years now, the United States Department of Defense has been
> engaged in a project to define a new computer programming language for
> use in weapon systems, as opposed to scientific or business and
> commercial applications.
> This effort will shortly reach its climax with the publication of the
> language design in April 1979.  Until now, the language has not had a
> distinctive name, and the steering committee of the project has been
> open to suggestions for such a name. 

The steering commitee, as suggested by its name, was a
coordinating commitee, it did not do language design!

> The only serious contender, and
> one the committee would like to adopt, is Ada - in honour of Countess
> Lovelace. "
> http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/history/holwg-93/3.htm

Yes, it is fair to say that the name of the language was
the product of commitee discussions.

> As for protests that Steelman was not a design document but was merely
> a requirements document, here is a brief extract from Steelman:

Just look at Blue, Red, Yellow, Green, to see how different
languages meeting these requirements could be. Yes, there
were some specific requirements established which influenced the
design, that's what requirements do.

Basically the only people who claim Ada was designed
by a committee are people who weren't around and are
ignorant of the actual facts. If you were around, you
would know how remarkably false this was (indeed there
were some occasions on which i would have liked the
commitees involved to have had more say in the design
of the language -- one example, the DR's voted close
to unanimously to get rid of derived types in their
current form -- the design team simply ignored this vote :-)