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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f849b,857262ad7d0ad537 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1904a679c27288b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1904a679c27288b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2f4cdd9ccfb8ede X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: How many different processors do you use? Date: 1999/06/11 Message-ID: <7jro57$nti$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 488498098 References: <7j1qng$4fp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37576ded.26569745@news.mpx.com.au> <7j8ac0$eah$1@uranium.btinternet.com> <7jh07e$tek$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jhp34$6f1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jjij7$qci$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jl9n3$n9j$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk> <19990610.7A689D8.FF4B@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jun 11 19:30:47 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,gnu.misc.discuss X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <19990610.7A689D8.FF4B@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us>, mojaveg@ridgecrest.ca.us (Everett M. Greene) wrote: It is hard to know if it is worth answering these points, or whether this is just a troll, but I will give Everett the benefit of the doubt :-) > It took 16 years to produce something which is useful? No one said that Ada 83 was not useful, a lot of VERY successful, VERY useful software was written in Ada 83. Ada 95 is an improvement, but surely you don't think that all Ford motorcars before 1999 are useless just because there is a new improved model in 1999! > And this is after it took 10+ years to get to the `83 > product Actually it was much less than ten years. But this is a bit silly in any case. You might as well complain that C++ has by these standards taken well over 30 years, given that the original version of C is that old, or that Fortran and COBOL have taken forty years. > To say that this speed is glacial is an insult to glaciers It is of course this silly witicism that makes me think this is really a troll, but again giving Everett the benefit of the doubt, standardizing a programming language is a very complex task. What surprises people in the field is how fast this process went. We certainly have no examples of the process going faster, and in particular for example, it took a very long time to standardize C++, and we still have very few C++ compilers that implement the full ISO standard. Note that by comparison, Java standardization has just moved back to square one, with no progress at all, given Sun's decision that they cannot work with ISO. It may be a long long wait before Java has an international standard. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.