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: 103376,29fe9a340e0d180d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Depending on passing mechanism Date: 1997/10/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 282513692 References: X-Trace: 877560443 24210 bpr 206.184.139.132 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-10-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Henry Baker wrote: > In article , bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A > Duff) wrote: > > When you gripe about some supposed flaw in Ada, you should make it clear > > what you're comparing it to -- C? C++? Common Lisp? Some obscure > > functional language? Some ideal language in your head? -- all of those > > can be valuable criticisms, but it's helpful to know whether "Ada's > > limited types suck" is said in relation to a language that even *has* a > > concept of limited types! I have no idea why this question was included, since the it isn't answered. Which language, or process for achieving consensus leads to results that make everyone happy? I can't get 4 people to agree where to go to dinner without disappointing someone! > This is not to take anything away from those who worked on this process. > In many ways, they were too clever for their own good. Instead of forcing > certain things to be discarded or fixed, they managed to live with them. > If one believes that more code will be programmed in the future than in > the past, this unwillingness to fix old code is penny-wise and pound-foolish, > because all new code pays for the mistakes of the past. No, code is like any other man made thing in that compatibility with previous technology is very important, far more important than some people think. If you change the underlying language dramatically every few years the retooling effort overwhelms everyone. Unfortunately, that means that widely used programming languages accumulate features. It also means that features like FFIs (foreign function interfaces) outweigh cool gadgets like unique modes in most applications. -- Brian