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: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,87f6968ed41c9df1 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: Re: Multiple reasons for failure of Ariane 5 (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?) Date: 1996/08/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 174549504 references: <4ta0iu$kks@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <4u538f$9q6@hacgate2.hac.com> <4u6723$kp2@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <4uibvh$1p76@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: National University, San Diego mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 Date: 1996-08-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 10 Aug 1996 dwnoon@ibm.net wrote: > Combined with being a better FORTRAN than FORTRAN and a better > Pascal than Pascal, I guess it's also a better Ada than Ada. I have programmed in PL/I (when it was still PL/1) as well as Ada. I not the slightest doubt about the improvement of PL/I over its predecessors. However, Ada is clearly superior to PL/I as a software engineering language. It is even a better programming language. I could go into detail about the model for pointers, or the frailty of the DO WHILE construct, but "He convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." On the other hand, I would rather see people using PL/I for a serious project than C. And I have heard there is an effort to release an Object-oriented version of PL/I in the near future. That might actually make PL/I a viable alternative to C++. Richard Riehle