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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,374e3d493349dc8f X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-13 22:50:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!novia!novia!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail From: Dale Stanbrough Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is there )) Organization: RMIT References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de> <46vast4p1qnb0e8bt59v4e8616hacvcgtd@4ax.com> <3BC5C49F.B1386292@ao_spam_nix.de> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 05:50:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.82.11 X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1003038622 144.132.82.11 (Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:50:22 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:50:22 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:30783 comp.lang.ada:14470 Date: 2001-10-14T05:50:22+00:00 List-Id: Israel Raj T wrote: Dale Stanbrough wrote: > >Now repeat after me... > > Ada was not designed by a committee. > > Ada was not designed by a committee. > > Ada was not designed by a committee. > > Yes, you are absolutely right Dale.... > > At least 21 people and TWO committees were involved. > > "In 1975 the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) established a A High > Order Language Working Group (HOLWG) ...to formulate the DoD > requirements for high order languages . The requirements were widely > distributed for comment throughout the military and civil communities, > producing successively more refined versions from Strawman through > Woodenman, Tinman, Ironman, and finally Steelman." > http://www.adahome.com/History/Steelman/steeltab.htm Yes, this was the requirements section. > "A high-order language working group (HOLWG) was formed with Whitaker > as chairman. Other representatives included Cmdr. Jack Cooper, the > Navy representative (along with Bernie Zempolich and Robert Kahane), > Bill Carlson of ARPA, Maj. Tom Jarrell of the Air Force, Paul Cohen of > the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), Lt. Col. Schamber of the > Marine Corps, and Maj. Breault of the Army." > http://www.adapower.com/adafaq.htm ...and what was the structure of the group. Perhaps it was a committee, perhaps Col. Whitaker had veto over all decisions (i personally don't know). > "The Ada design team was led by Jean D. Ichbiah and has included > Berned Krieg-Bruechner, Brain A. Wichmann, Henry F. Ledgard, > Jean-Cluade Heliard, Jean-Loup Gailly, Jean-Ryanmond Abrial, John G. > P. Barnes, Mike Woodger, Olivier Roubine, Paul N. Hilfinger, and > Robert Firth. " > http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/history/histada.txt Jean Ichbiah definately did have the power to overrule, and examples of this being used have been posted to the Ada newsgroup in the past. > As for the use of the word "committee": > > "Dear Lord Lytton > [...] > This effort will shortly reach its climax with the publication of the > language design in April 1979. Until now, the language has not had a > distinctive name, and the steering committee of the project has been > open to suggestions for such a name. The only serious contender, and > one the committee would like to adopt, is Ada - in honour of Countess > Lovelace. " > http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/history/holwg-93/3.htm This was still in the requirements phase. > As for protests that Steelman was not a design document but was merely > a requirements document, here is a brief extract from Steelman: > [examples of requirements that look suspiciously like design removed] I went to the website that you specified, and also found the following... 13E. Translator Characteristics. Translators for the language will be written in the language and will be able to produce code for a variety of object machines. The machine independent parts of translators should be separate from code generators. Although it is desirable, translators need not be able to execute on every object machine. The internal characteristics of the translator (i.e., the translation method) shall not be specified by the language definition or standards. which was a bizzare requirement, yet it was clearly not followed by a lot of implementors, nor did it find it's way into the final design. Clearly the -design- team removed it from consideration. Perhaps the team considered all of the requirements, and removed those that they didn't like, and kept those they did (once again I don't know the process that was followed - i suspect we need a more authoriatative history than one that is presumed by looking through some of the available documentation). What I see as the implicit assumption in the original posting that the design team was a committee (where committee is being used in the pejorative sense) is one that cannot be sustained on the available evidence. Do you have any more evidence from the people involved in the design process that indicates that it was a mish mash of competing interests, rather than being reasonably well thought out? BTW more than a couple of people involved does not equal bad design. The Java API had thread.stop, thread.resume right from the word go; anybody familiar with threading research would have told you they are not good routines to have. Dale