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: 109fba,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,bdaddde464f6e704 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,bdaddde464f6e704 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: The disturbing myth of Eiffel portability Date: 1996/12/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 201790467 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article piercarl@sabi.demon.co.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > donh> The language. Yes, this only applies to languages with a single > donh> line of descendants (eg. Ada, Eiffel). Where the evolutionary tree > donh> branches, it only makes sense to speak of specific variants. [ > donh> ... ] > > Ahhh, but it's not as simple as that. In part because it's often not > clear what is the ``current'' incarnation of a language; in part > because, and that was my main point w.r.t. to the Eiffel-Eiffel 3 > distinction, to me Eiffel 3 is logically a branch on the Eiffel > descendancy tree, not a linear descendant, and that continuining to call > it ``Eiffel'' is thus somewhat misleading, for it implies a degree of > continuity that is not there. I would tend to disagree with this. Probably in general, but certainly for the two particular cases mentioned. There is really no issue or problem or whatever concerning what is the current "incarnation" of either Ada or Eiffel. For Ada, ISO/IEC 8652:1995 explicitly refers to: "Information Technology -- Programming Languages -- Ada". Pretty clear. For Eiffel, the direct analogue is "Eiffel The Language", which does not say "Eiffel-3 The Language" or whatever. In both cases there is a _great_ deal of continuity there and I don't see anything particularly misleading about the unqualified names. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com