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: fdb77,374e3d493349dc8f X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-15 21:16:03 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 04:09:40 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.programmer:102051 comp.lang.java.advocacy:30874 comp.lang.ada:14626 Date: 2001-10-16T04:09:40+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.java.advocacy Pascal Obry wrote: : 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 :) Here's a quick stab at explaining it: the creative process often works best when all the elements involved are connected together by high-speed axons. When some of the communications channels involved have to go onto the speech level, across to other individuals and back again, everything is slowed down, and garbled. Also a collection of individuals is less likely to behave as a coherent unit that an collection of an individuals neurons. The result is perhaps more likely to be an "average" - a compromise between different design aims. As consequences of this sort of thing design-by-committee is likely to produce systematically different results to (say) design by individual creative genius. Not everyone always likes the differences. -- __________ |im |yler Index of my domains: http://timtyler.org/ tt@iname.com