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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: billy@cast.msstate.edu (Billy Chambless)
Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.
Date: 1997/12/30
Message-ID: <68b5b2$8b4$1@nntp.msstate.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 311351932
References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com>
 <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
 <34A14C27.57C0@min.net> <67rjb3$pfb$1@brie.direct.ca>
 <34A50CAA.54AA@netup.cl> <dewar.883284068@merv> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net>
 <dewar.883418599@merv> <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net>
 <dewar.883445953@merv>
Organization: MSU - Center for Air/Sea Technology
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu
Date: 1997-12-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.883445953@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
|> <<Keep on dreaming.  No language, ever, can be defined by a piece of paper.
|> Unless it is a dead language that is no longer used and therefore no longer
|> changes.  This concept is simply impossible.
|> >>


|> This is complete nonsense. It does not correspond to the real situation
|> with many standardized languages. Many programmers know the C standard
|> well, carefully adhere to it, and succeed in writing portable code, and
|> the same thing can be said of Fortran, COBOL and Ada programmers (
|> particularly in the latter case, Ada programmers tend to know the standard
|> well).

And the converse is true, as well. Many "programmers" who consider the
compiler to define the laguage generate code that runs fine, but creates
major migraines when it has to be ported, or even compiled with a
different compiler. On Unix, for instance, the standard Sun C compiler
will accept crap that the SGI compiler will choke on.


|> The idea that a language wanders around ill-defined, and programmers follow
|> it may seem familiar to undisciplined hackers, but it does not required
|> dreamers to correct this totally unacceptable behavior!

Yep. It's not really all that hard to base one's programing style on the
formal definition of the language,  making use of extensions as needed.
It's more an attitude than anything.

|> Sounds like you have very little direct experience with language
|> standardization efforts, your account above bares no relation to reality.

Indeed.