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=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,374e3d493349dc8f X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,5dbc5c834131d614 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-15 10:40:49 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is there )) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:12:57 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9qf5eq$2na$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de> <46vast4p1qnb0e8bt59v4e8616hacvcgtd@4ax.com> <3BC5C49F.B1386292@ao_spam_nix.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1003165978 2794 136.170.200.133 (15 Oct 2001 17:12:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Oct 2001 17:12:58 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.programmer:101874 comp.lang.java.advocacy:30853 comp.lang.ada:14554 Date: 2001-10-15T17:12:58+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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!".