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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!shelby!agate!ucbvax!sei.cmu.edu!Judy.Bamberger
From: Judy.Bamberger@sei.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Holiday Cheer ??
Message-ID: <8912141658.AA24393@fa.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 89 16:58:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


   -- 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.

Just somethin' to keep in mind when discussing the (de)merits of any
programming language, its features, or the abstractions it provides.

Submitted most respectfully.