Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is there ))

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Excellent point. The "designed by committee" criticism is practically an ad
hominem attack - if a language can be said to be "hominem" :-) The truth or
falsity of that accusation is basically irrelavent. The question ought to be
"Is the language well designed for its intended application?" If not, then
let's here some specific criticisms of what is "bad" about it. ("Too big"? -
Level that one against lots of languages these days! C++ is almost certainly
bigger - especially considering the convoluted semantics of many features.
"Too many features"? Which ones would you get rid of and why?)

Ada was designed for large, long-lived applications that may have a high
reliability requirement. To that end, I think it satisfies its requirements
rather well. It is a very consistent and orthogonal language that has well
defined & consistent behaviors for its various features. Plenty of error
checking is included to help insure reliable code. If one thinks it is
designed with too many competing requirements that created too many oddball
features, then describe those and explain why they are bad. I'd think it is
interesting to note that many languages that came after Ada have included
many of its features in some other form - a testament that perhaps they
really are useful? Or is it that all languages get "designed by committee" -
one consisting of its more vocal user base. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ray Blaak" <blaak@telus.net> wrote in message
news:uzo6s26q7.fsf@telus.net...
>
> Things get silly otherwise: "here is a great language that can do these
> wonderful things". "But it was designed by a committee, so we can't use
it!".