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: 103376,99222a5bd46ef3c9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com>
Subject: Re: GOTO considered necessary (reworked)
Date: 1997/06/24
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.970624112116.25406A-100000@shellx.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252283554
References: <5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net>
 <199706121410.QAA05823@basement.replay.com> <dewar.866134855@merv>
 <33A0840B.1B41@sprintmail.com> <EBpyzK.5pH@world.std.com>
 <33A58C79.1C7A@sprintmail.com> <dewar.866548262@merv>
 <33A8DB59.776F@hello.nl> <33AE29D6.7258@sprintmail.com>
 <dewar.867079599@merv>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 23 Jun 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Right, I often state a rule that says that adding ANY feature AT ALL to
> a language damages the language by increasing size and complexity. The
> trick is to ensure that the positive contributions of the new feature
> outweigh this damage.

Possible counterexample: I believe that in Ada 83, renaming of generic 
units was forbidden. That restriction was removed in Ada 95, or if you 
prefer to think of the dual of that proposition, a feature was added.

One could probably make up lots of examples of this sort where a
restriction is removed, a new feature thus enabled with an overall 
reduction in language complexity. 

I agree with your rule, if you interpret these cases as being something 
other than the addition of features.

-- Brian