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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-16 13:51:49 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!feed.news.nacamar.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.149.20.147.MISMATCH!mercury.nildram.co.uk!not-for-mail Message-ID: <8qkczsAcGcn+Ew83@nildram.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:48:28 +0100 From: Tom Welsh Reply-To: Tom Welsh Sender: Tom Welsh Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP References: <3E4E8F8C.9C096985@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302250710.5549baaf@posting.google.com> <3E5C7033.BD5DC462@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com> <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.208.100.157 X-Trace: 1050526309 mercury.nildram.net 45172 213.208.100.157 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62272 comp.object:61199 comp.lang.ada:36212 misc.misc:13363 Date: 2003-04-16T21:48:28+01:00 List-Id: In article , Kent Paul Dolan writes >Richard Riehle wrote: > >> The language is structured around a few simple principles. > >Which seem to be "simple" only in the minds of computer >language theorists, not in the minds of us mere programmers, >to whom the reasons for which these principles are >meritorious and why they should govern our lives are still >quite convincingly opaque. > Which "computer language theorists" are you talking about? Surely not Jean D. Ichbiah, Bernd Krieg-Bruechner, Brian A. Wichmann, Henry F. Ledgard, Jean-Claude Heliard, Jean-Loup Gailly, Jean-Ryanmond Abrial, John G. P. Barnes, Mike Woodger, Olivier Roubine, Paul N. Hilfinger, and Robert Firth. Do you actually know any of these people? Have you heard of them? Maybe very clever, experienced programmers sometimes seem like "computer language theorists" to programmers who are not quite so clever or experienced. When you are programming away on your Intel-based or Sparc-based computer, do you often pause to contemplate the foolishness of the chip designers, who followed principles that are not entirely clear to you? Or do you just learn how to use the results of their work? -- Tom Welsh