* pro Ada argument? @ 1989-12-04 13:04 horst 1989-12-09 18:43 ` Ada, 1992, and Product Responsibility William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 1989-12-14 14:45 ` pro Ada argument? forsyth 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: horst @ 1989-12-04 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw) The recent discussion initiated by Ted Holdon's article surprised me a bit. Nobody answered the argument that I thought would be THE one in favor of Ada: It's not the programmers that decide which language to use in the future In the European Market we expect to have laws in 1992 that resemble the American Laws of Product Responsibility. As far as I know, those can make an implementor responsible for any consequences of using an implementation language which is not considered the best choice. And there are strong signals that Ada will be the default 'best choice' for lawyers. Is this not true for the US? Regards Horst hk@pcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada, 1992, and Product Responsibility 1989-12-04 13:04 pro Ada argument? horst @ 1989-12-09 18:43 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 1989-12-30 5:04 ` Metafont Consultant Account 1989-12-14 14:45 ` pro Ada argument? forsyth 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 @ 1989-12-09 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) From horst@pcsbst.UUCP (horst): > In the European Market we expect to have laws in 1992 that resemble the > American Laws of Product Responsibility. As far as I know, those can make > an implementor responsible for any consequences of using an implementation > language which is not considered the best choice. And there are strong > signals that Ada will be the default 'best choice' for lawyers. Is this > not true for the US? The US is going to be behind Europe in many ways once the European integration process has completed; the standardization of product regulations in Europe will be considerably greater than that which exists in the US, for example -- here there are still many different regulation systems which vary from state to state (example: insurance), and there is no real effort underway to eliminate all the inconsistencies. It will probably take a decade or so for the US to catch up, both in terms of using Ada and in terms of standardizing its marketplace. As for the product responsibility, I don't think the US lawyers have yet discovered this particular approach to demonstrating negligence. (Cross-posted to misc.legal for further discussion) Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada, 1992, and Product Responsibility 1989-12-09 18:43 ` Ada, 1992, and Product Responsibility William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 @ 1989-12-30 5:04 ` Metafont Consultant Account 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Metafont Consultant Account @ 1989-12-30 5:04 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7390@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From horst@pcsbst.UUCP (horst): >> In the European Market we expect to have laws in 1992 that resemble the >> American Laws of Product Responsibility. As far as I know, those can make >> an implementor responsible for any consequences of using an implementation >> language which is not considered the best choice. And there are strong >> signals that Ada will be the default 'best choice' for lawyers. Is this >> not true for the US? > > The US is going to be behind Europe in many ways once the European > integration process has completed; the standardization of product > regulations in Europe will be considerably greater than that which > exists in the US, for example -- here there are still many different > regulation systems which vary from state to state (example: insurance), > and there is no real effort underway to eliminate all the inconsistencies. > > It will probably take a decade or so for the US to catch up, both in > terms of using Ada and in terms of standardizing its marketplace. As > for the product responsibility, I don't think the US lawyers have yet > discovered this particular approach to demonstrating negligence. > > (Cross-posted to misc.legal for further discussion) > > > Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu Granted that Ada is a marvelous language in its narrowly defined area of competence, I think any defense lawyer would have a field day poking holes in a language that has been frozen by a military bureaucracy; that ignores best current practice (full fledged OOP); whose semantics is so ill defined that most programmer users avoid most of the language most of the time, and most employers put lots of language features off limits; the implementation of one of whose main goals (concurrent programming support for embedded multiprocessor systems) is held up as a horrid example in language theory classes; whose syntax ignored established usage in favor of cuteness or uniqueness (read opaqueness); whose behavior is completely counter-intuitive, and on and on and on. And I _liked_ my chance to program fancy graph theory algorithms in Ada generics. Ada just has no business being pointed to as a standard of language excellence. It is too big, too awkward, shows its seams too prominently, and is _much_ too hard to teach, to learn, and to use. The "Dear Ada" column in Ada Letters is always an occassion for laughter and tears, but never for that warm feeling of satisfaction at seeing a job well done. Maybe if the Ada 0x committee develops a bit of gumption, Ada could be made useful without pain at some future date, but for now...nah. My opinions only, of course. Don't blame the folks who furnish the account. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* re: pro Ada argument? 1989-12-04 13:04 pro Ada argument? horst 1989-12-09 18:43 ` Ada, 1992, and Product Responsibility William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 @ 1989-12-14 14:45 ` forsyth 1989-12-22 18:05 ` horst 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: forsyth @ 1989-12-14 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) >From horst@pcsbst.UUCP (horst) >... Nobody answered the argument that I thought would be THE one >in favor of Ada: > It's not the programmers that decide which language to use in the future >In the European Market we expect to have laws in 1992 that resemble the >American Laws of Product Responsibility. As far as I know, those can make >an implementor responsible for any consequences of using an implementation >language which is not considered the best choice. And there are strong >signals that Ada will be the default 'best choice' for lawyers. Is this >not true for the US? Horst Kern reports a novel approach to software engineering: let the lawyers do it. What a good way of settling technical arguments! (See Jacques Ellul's `The Technological Society' [La Technique] for some interesting consequences of similar ideas.) Still, I suppose it was no more than computer scientists deserved for having the temerity to write `expert systems' in Prolog to analyse the British Nationality Act (1981). I take it that EEC legislators will suffer similar penalties if they produce poor `products' of their own? Stoppage of claret, perhaps? Mind you, a good QC with some help (technical advice and an annotated copy of all those AI-123 notes) should have lots of fun with Ichbiah in the witness box. Perhaps we should book Leo McKern now? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: pro Ada argument? 1989-12-14 14:45 ` pro Ada argument? forsyth @ 1989-12-22 18:05 ` horst 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: horst @ 1989-12-22 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <629649952.9223@minster.york.ac.uk> forsyth@minster.york.ac.uk writes: > Horst Kern reports a novel approach to software engineering: let the > lawyers do it. What a good way of settling technical arguments! (See Okay, I can see the problem: Even though everyone was called to participate in the Ada effort, some people - like Edsgar Dijkstra - have given their reasons for repelling all three language proposals and are now hoping that the Russians will use Ada too. (He made this statement 6 years ago so it is perhaps not up to date any more.) The current discussion makes it evident that the laws (again this word which is so much disliked) of nature have not yet been discovered in computer science. So I think it is a good discussion and nobody should tell Ted Holdon to shut up. Best regards, Horst ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1989-12-30 5:04 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1989-12-04 13:04 pro Ada argument? horst 1989-12-09 18:43 ` Ada, 1992, and Product Responsibility William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 1989-12-30 5:04 ` Metafont Consultant Account 1989-12-14 14:45 ` pro Ada argument? forsyth 1989-12-22 18:05 ` horst
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox