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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a146,5dbc5c834131d614 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,374e3d493349dc8f X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-15 21:11:01 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!server3.netnews.ja.net!bath.ac.uk!unknown From: Tim Tyler Subject: Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is there )) User-Agent: tin/1.4.3-20000502 ("Marian") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.19 (i686)) Reply-To: tt@iname.com Sender: unknown@bits.bris.ac.uk (Address not verified) Organization: University of Bristol, UK Message-ID: References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de> <46vast4p1qnb0e8bt59v4e8616hacvcgtd@4ax.com> <3BC5C49F.B1386292@ao_spam_nix.de> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 04:01:13 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.programmer:102049 comp.lang.java.advocacy:30872 comp.lang.ada:14625 Date: 2001-10-16T04:01:13+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.java.advocacy Ray Blaak wrote: : Israel Raj T writes: :> Dale Stanbrough wrote: :> >Now repeat after me... :> > Ada was not designed by a committee. :> > Ada was not designed by a committee. :> > Ada was not designed by a committee. : 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". : One should evaluate a language on its own merits. Whether 1, 2 or N people : designed it simply shouldn't matter; the language stands or falls based : on its own characteristics and not those of its authors. Maybe in an ideal world. In practice languages get judged for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with their own merits. Looking at the merits of something can be a time-consuming process. Far easier and quicker to make a snap-decision based on popular opinion and hearsay. -- __________ |im |yler Index of my domains: http://timtyler.org/ tt@iname.com