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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,73036d0217be91e2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Inheritance versus Generics Date: 1997/05/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239027322 References: <33601924.774@flash.net> <336596D9.2781E494@eiffel.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <336596D9.2781E494@eiffel.com>, Bertrand Meyer wrote: >Large-scale practical experience with a language cannot hurt, of >course, but (posited) lack thereof does not disqualify one from >talking about the language. I tend to agree with Bertrand Meyer here. I mean, I've criticized some aspects of Eiffel without having written a line of code in Eiffel (well, at least not something serious). But I've at least read the language definition carefully. Perhaps Robert Dewar is (over)reacting to those who criticize Ada without knowing the first thing about it. I don't think Meyer is one of those. I can read a language definition (carefully), and feel some confidence in criticizing it, despite the fact that I haven't invested several years of my life programming in it. Otherwise, how can we make progress in language design? There are thousands of languages out there -- the best we can expect from language designers is to be familiar with them by reading -- not direct experience. Of course, there are those who believe Ada or Eiffel or whatever to be the ultimate -- but they're wrong; there's a lot of progress still to be made in this field. >Thanks, by the way, for the nice comments about the book. I liked your book, too. :-) - Bob