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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b41c6348841d8091 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b41c6348841d8091 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: subjectivity Date: 1997/09/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 272845779 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au References: Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote: :In article nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: : :> The interest factor may be quite relevant here. My interest in minimality, :> uniqueness etc. certainly colours my own perception of simplicity. : :That's not all there is to it. What is being "minimized" and what is :"unique" plays a central role as well. Agree. Also, qualities may be beneficial in one *sense* and not another. For example, one could argue that minimal language mechanisms make a language easier to understand. But from another perspective, code implemented in such a language may be less easy to understand because more statements are required. This is one reason why reuse becomes so important when using minimalist languages. Further, minimalism has a performance overhead so increases the burden on compiler writers to optimise extensively. While there may be factors which derail it, this may be an argument in favour of Ada's "richness". Oops, I'd better take that back - I'm supposed to be a closed-minded language bigot! :) Don. (Reverse to reply) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison au.com.csa.syd@donh