Re: Any research putting c above ada?

[kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku)]

In article <E9F3CF.2KK@research.att.com>,
Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote:
>In article <JSA.97Apr28190941@alexandria> jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes:
>
>> Well, you rather miss the mark on this particular comment as at least
>> two of the requirements in question ("readability, safety,") are not
>> exactly specific to DoD.  Or do you think Bell Labs (or ATT) doesn't
>> really care about either issue?  Actually, for all I know, maybe they
>> don't and your comment is in fact spot on.
>
>OK ... suppose you're in the DoD and you're in charge of setting
>down preliminary requirements for a DoD standard programming language.
>If a language already exists that will meet those requirements, the
>DoD will use it.  If no such language already exists, the DoD will
>launch a huge project to create one and put you in charge of it.
>
>Under such circumstances, wouldn't you do whatever it took to be sure
>that no existing language could meet the requirements?  If not, you
>would probably not have reached a level in the hierarchy that would
>have allowed you to influence the decision in the first place.
>
>The nature of the decision process GUARANTEED that no existing
>language would qualify.  Therefore, no inference can legitimately
>be drawn from the nonqualification of any existing language.

That has too much of the flavor of a conspiracy theory. Even if it's true, what
does it matter? The tough requirements resulted in a strong language; who cares
where they came from?  The requirements are particularly unreasonable or
arbitrary; most of them are justifiable. Furthermore, a language was
successfully constructed which met most of them, indicating that the
requirements are not impossible to meet.  That language now has a proven track
record in demanding applications.

I think that a heck of a lot inference can be drawn from the nonqualification
of an existing languages to these requirements. It means that the languages
which failed to qualify were designed to weak, compromised requirements, if
any.

If I were in that position to draw those requirements, I would have darn well
made sure that they were tougher than those that underlie any existing
language; that way I would not be reproached for having made a compromise
in favor of something less than excellent.