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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a82f86f344c98f79
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s72.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org>
Organization: jrcarter at acm dot org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Avatox 1.0: Trouble with encoding in Windows
References: <45051d37@news.upm.es>
   <45053aec$0$5142$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
   <5ZednRK-0M3K15rYnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@megapath.net>
   <1158145462.921837.152720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <1158224191.059815.103080@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <lEjOg.187763$1i1.48666@attbi_s72>
 <450a74ae$0$17404$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <JGGOg.51789$aJ.33083@attbi_s21> <soQOg.16661$E02.6593@newsb.telia.net>
In-Reply-To: <soQOg.16661$E02.6593@newsb.telia.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <AMhPg.192595$1i1.43649@attbi_s72>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s72 1158523040 12.201.97.213 (Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:57:20 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:57:20 GMT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:57:20 GMT
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6623
Date: 2006-09-17T19:57:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bj�rn Persson wrote:
> 
> Because it's a bad idea to invent new programming languages all the 
> time. It's not only a waste of time to start your project by designing a 
> language and writing a compiler; the language would also most likely be 
> much worse than some of the existing languages you could have used. 
> Having one well-designed language that can be used in all projects is 
> much better. (Those were the reasons why Ada was created, as I've 
> understood it.) English is � unfortunately � the /lingua franca/ of our 
> time, so using English words for keywords is a better choice than using 
> German words.

Designing a language for a project is sometimes a good idea. I recall a 
report about a class project where there was actual hardware to control 
(I think it was a clothes washing machine). When the students tried to 
control the hardware directly from the general-purpose language, there 
were lots of failures. When they created a problem-specific language, 
with statements such as Fill_Tank (Load_Size), Drain_Tank, 
Start_Agitation, and so on, success was much more common.

Of course, these statements were really calls to a library, and the 
program was really in the general-purpose language.

But I agree that one doesn't want to design and implement a language for 
each project. Just for each language. Ada was designed for the US DOD, 
an English-speaking organization. Do you think a similar project in 
China should have used English reserved words? Or that it would have 
been fine for the Green team to have used French reserved words?

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Run away! Run away!"
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
58