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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!STAR.STANFORD.EDU!SALLEN%LOCK.SPAN From: SALLEN%LOCK.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU (Stanley Roger Allen, AdaDude) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Ada language revision Message-ID: <8811141420.AA01652@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 14 Nov 88 13:20:06 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet List-Id: Well, time is pressing on and the review has begun for analyzing anew changes that should be made to the Ada language. Through a variety of sources, a number of not-very-bright statements have come to our attention concerning "improvements" to the Ada language that should be "easily incorporated" into the the 1994 revision. A lot of these people are certainly driven by nothing more sinister than the "feature junkie" complex (cf. Dijkstra's Turing Award lecture, 1972). What makes a lot of these suggestions dangerous is more that just a lack of appreciation for the language design and structure. We are also seeing a deep misapprehension of what the goals of the Ada program are to begin with. We are not trying to create a research engine, or a summation of the latest programming language paradigms, or a fault-tolerant distributed operating system, etc. Those who are to make decisions about the future of the Ada language need discover what exactly we *are* trying to create. To give a one-line answer to this question would be to defeat the purpose of this missive. I am proposing that anyone who wishes to make suggestions for improving the language, adding new features, deleting language elements, or change the organization of the language (even in ways that may seem trivial) should first do their homework. There is a specific body of knowledge that you should possess when approaching this topic. Have you read the Steelman document and/or its predecessors? (Do you even know what the Steelman document is?) Have you read the "Rationale for the Design of the Ada Language"? Do you understand the type system of the Ada language? Have you been looking through the megabytes of textual commentaries that have been accumulating since the beginning of the Ada program? Does the LRM still confuse you? Perhaps there should be a "required reading list" and "qualifying exams" for Ada language maintainers. Perhaps there is; I don't know. Jean Ichbiah says that many languages previous to Ada followed a three-step process for their creation: "shoot, aim, think". Ada is among the languages that reversed the process, which is one of the reasons for the great success it has become. In maintaining the language, thinking should also come first. Part of that thinking is going back to previous thinking and absorbing it. Any other path is pure hubris. Stanley Allen allen@star.stanford.edu