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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257469355 References: Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Don said <> Time to restate the following observation: Unify and Confuse both mean at their root the same thing, namely to make into one, or to join together, but they express a different judgment as to the desirability of of the joining. A lot of the arguments in PL design come doesn to whether joining concepts together is unification or confusion: Do expression languages unify or confuse the notion of statement and expression? Does Algol-68 unify or confuse the notion of reference and pointer Does Eiffel unify or confuse the notions of module and type TO me the answer to the last question is that it confuses, rather than unifies, quite contrary to Don's point of view. And it is hardly worth going through the aguments again, since there is unlikely to be anything new said (Don certainly had nothing new to say on this issue, and neither do I :-)