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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!emory!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Substitutions
Message-ID: <7466@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 89 20:44:54 GMT
References: <8912141658.AA24393@fa.sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From Judy.Bamberger@sei.cmu.edu:
> -- A standard preprocessor would have the advantage of being standardized,
> -- but would suffer the disadvantage that compiler optimizations are not
> -- possible where the compiler has no knowledge of high-level semantics,
> -- which is a major reason not to simply codify the preprocessing practice. 
> 
% With a few substitions and a bit o' poetic license, the above could be
% rephrased as:
% 
%    A standard LANGUAGE would have the advantage of being standardized,
%    but would suffer the disadvantage that APPLICATION-SPECIFIC 
%    IDIOMS are not possible where the LANGUAGE has no knowledge of 
%    APPLICATION-level semantics, which is a major reason not to simply 
%    codify the PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.

   The analogy is fundamentally flawed; while the first passage notes
   problems with one strategy and suggests another, the second states 
   in essence that since a standardized computer programming language
   is more rigorous than a human language, computer programming languages
   should not be standardized, which of course does not follow.

   Perhaps the spiked eggnog is being passed around a bit too early... 


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu