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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,374e3d493349dc8f X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,5dbc5c834131d614 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-14 18:54:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is there )) Date: 14 Oct 2001 18:54:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0110141754.3c3c08c0@posting.google.com> References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de> <46vast4p1qnb0e8bt59v4e8616hacvcgtd@4ax.com> <3BC5C49F.B1386292@ao_spam_nix.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003110866 3254 127.0.0.1 (15 Oct 2001 01:54:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Oct 2001 01:54:26 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.programmer:101690 comp.lang.java.advocacy:30819 comp.lang.ada:14496 Date: 2001-10-15T01:54:26+00:00 List-Id: Israel Raj T wrote in message news:... > > 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 :-)