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: 103376,73036d0217be91e2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Inheritance versus Generics Date: 1997/05/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239106839 References: <33601924.774@flash.net> <336596D9.2781E494@eiffel.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Duff said <, Bertrand Meyer wrote: >Large-scale practical experience with a language cannot hurt, of >course, but (posited) lack thereof does not disqualify one from >talking about the language. I tend to agree with Bertrand Meyer here. I mean, I've criticized some aspects of Eiffel without having written a line of code in Eiffel (well, at least not something serious). But I've at least read the language definition carefully. I am just stating a rule that comes from a lot of experience. I have all too often seen experts in this field make statements about languages they do not know well enough. Often these comments are just factually incorrect. I could give lots of examples, with lots of famous names, but that seems perhaps inappropriate :-) Anyway, it is a rule I follow for myself. I have seen far too many people who should know better make completely ridiculous statements about languages they do not know well enough -- this is particularly true for lesser known languages such as COBOL (I mean of course lesser known among the language design crowd :-) I have also seen plenty of absurd statements about C++ by Ada advocates, and plenty of absurd statements about Ada by all sorts of people. Anyway, I follow the rule myself, you won't see me criticizing Eiffel until such time as I have done some substantial programming in that language for example. Yes, it makes it harder to compare languages, but I still find it a very useful rule in filtering out objective observsations from subjective wishes. Language design is full of advocacy from people who urgently wish language X to be the best, and are consequently blinder than they should be to shortcomings of X, and strenghts of (not X). Going back to the quote, my concern is NOT with people who don't know anything, it is with experts who just don't have enough working familiarity with how a language is actually used in practice. This is a very important aspect of understanding a language design. This cannot be obtained from reading a reference manual. <> By the way, please note that I did not, and did not intend to specifically suggest Betrand as someone who made incorrect statements, and I have made no such statement. Bertrand added his own name to the thread in his follow up :-) I certainly did not say that Bertrand knows nothing about Ada, and I sure hope he did not take me to be saying that. I also do not say that anything disqualifies anyone from talking about anything! All I am saying is that I value comments more from people who have the practical experience to go along with their theoretical understanding. And that I apply this to myself, so if you see a comment from me criticizing a language, then it means I have written substantial amounts of code in the language (substantial = for me large scale delivered commercial code). (unless of course my evil twin brother has been masquerading as me again and violating this rule :-) Robert