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,f3f9104dada53163
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: An interesting quote on Java and C++
Date: 1997/09/06
Message-ID: <dewar.873591937@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270371271
References: <5ujjvq$t4s@drn.zippo.com>
 <01bcb881$915526a0$d7000064@sim01.amst.co.at>
 <3410a460.158341309@news.mindspring.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Munck says

<<I have trouble with that, given the examples of Pascal,
Modula, and AED. Maybe you put "Gurus" in quotes to indicate
an awareness of the difference between the hacker-type Unix/EMACS/C
expert and the truly wise, deep understanding of a Wirth or Ross.
There is a lot to be said for the uniformity of a language developed
by a single person from a single paradigm.>>

The trouble is that these days, no one person is a sufficient expert in
enough areas to build a comprehensive language that deals with a wide
range of problems. For example, key features of Ada are its very carefully
planned numerics model, and its language interfacing capability. The former
was developed with the help of experts in numeric issues, the latter with
the help of experts in the target languages (for example, the COBOL interface
was designed by people who know COBOL well).

This kind of cooperative effort is really a necessity for the development
of a comprehensive programming language.