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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/30 Message-ID: <5k7qpi$nb3@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 238446138 References: <335F9D0E.41C67EA6@cacd.rockwell.com> <5jqvbj$bd9@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net> Organization: Prism Systems Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Andrew Koenig wrote: >In article 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.