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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-24 06:03:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) 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 Date: 24 Apr 2003 06:03:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com> <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com> <8qkczsAcGcn+Ew83@nildram.co.uk> <3EA04A1E.CAFC1FEF@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0304221126.7112b7d5@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304230439.55d28e70@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.97.239.26 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051189416 8559 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2003 13:03:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Apr 2003 13:03:36 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62598 comp.object:61758 comp.lang.ada:36467 misc.misc:13640 Date: 2003-04-24T13:03:36+00:00 List-Id: Dr Chaos wrote in message news:... > The choice of what goes in a library and what is "in a language" is > important intellectually primarily to the more expert language > designers and implementors. Syntax is core to the language. So it should not be unnecessarily overloaded. Libraries can be learned in specialized variations, as needed. But every programmer needs to know the syntax. (Should anyway; if people are chunking the language syntax so their programmers can get their heads around it, I think the syntax is too complex.) > Once both a base language and libraries are assumed the precise point > of division has little substantial effect for typical programming tasks: > you have to know a both. > > If the goal is truly a minimal "core" language, then C is only barely > a contender (and C++ laughable)---Smalltalk and Lisp are the obvious > endpoints there. They're great languages, but in design very > substantially different from C or C++ or Ada. > > What I find bizzare and remarkable is the consistent assumption by > many others (especially those that don't use languages like Ada, > Eiffel and post F77 Fortran) that "C" and "C++" are almost-by-default, > the "correct" choice not just economically but in engineering quality. It's the other way around. Software engineering is a fake field full of charltans, simply because it stands on a false premise -- you can take anybody and turn them into good disciplined programmers by applications of certain principles. The actual fact is, results in software are to a *very* large part related to aptitude. If you can't hire well, the project is doomed no matter how many software engineering principles you apply. Once you have the right people, engineering quality will appear; you just need to make sure the design is good, the management is good (which often means not getting in the way of good quality), there is good quality assurance, and such less-than-flashy things. So there are no "engineering quality" correct choices. Some languages with straight-jacket mentalities make people think they are rigorous, disciplined tools that will make quality magically appear. That is deluded thinking. If Ada projects had actually succeeded in producing good quality software, it would have been everywhere today. The real solution -- for a language -- is on the opposite tack. You just need to find the tools that will fit best the "right aptitude" people. And that was C's success.