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: 103376,86616b1931cbdae5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Is Ada likely to survive ? Date: 1997/07/31 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 261242037 References: <33D005F2.E5DCD710@kaiwan.com> <33D3EC6E.7920@gsg.eds.com> <33DD01FA.247D@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> <5rnige$5d1@portal.gmu.edu> <5rp5dc$mjc$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 31 Jul 1997, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: > The real problem with Prolog is that it's a bit like Lisp: it's so easy > to implement (which is not the same as being easy to implement _well_) and > so well connected to other areas of computing that it has exploded into > lots of variants. There is far more creative energy going into developing > the logic programming paradigm than there is going into extending Ada, for > example. The fact that few seem to be working on extending Ada is certainly unfortunate IMO. Perhaps as we develop more experience with GNAT the situation will change. But I think the comparison here isn't completely fair. How much creative energy is going into extending the ISO Prolog standard, for example, compared to that going into extending Ada? ;-) But I agree with what you wrote, and when I asked about how many languages haven't survived I wasn't claiming none hadn't (I've written interperters for languages which never made it off my machine) but that any fairly widely used language will last "forever" in web years. -- Brian