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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,374e3d493349dc8f X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,5dbc5c834131d614 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-16 07:49:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de> <46vast4p1qnb0e8bt59v4e8616hacvcgtd@4ax.com> <3BC5C49F.B1386292@ao_spam_nix.de> Subject: Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is there )) Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:49:09 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:49:09 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.programmer:102197 comp.lang.java.advocacy:30897 comp.lang.ada:14684 Date: 2001-10-16T14:49:09+00:00 List-Id: In article , Pascal Obry says... > > >Ray Blaak writes: > >> To me whether or not Ada was designed by a committee is irrelevant, and >> perhaps semantic quibbling. Why should we care? Why does anyone care? I have >> never understood this objection of "designed by a committee". > >Me too. I have never ever really understood this point. Good to hear I'm not >the only one :) I think this is probably an American cultural thing. However, being an American, I do believe there is some truth in it. :-) Perhaps Tucker Taft (and Jean Ichabah before him) weren't better programming language designers than everyone on their respective Ada steering committes. However, they were certianly better than the *average* of everyone on those committes. So to my mind having the committes making all the design decisions instead would have been just insane. Fortunately for us all, that's not the way it worked. Interestingly, C++'s development between 1990 and its standarization in 1998 *does* seem to have been performed by committe. Actually, not just by *a* committe, but by a group of committees. (Stroustrup referred to them in his book as "the joint C++ standard committees"). --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.