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: 103376,8f8cea8602e61aba X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: The Red Language Date: 1997/09/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270504321 References: <340E2DC5.25D7@worldnet.att.net> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Michael said <> No, Ada 95 is nothing like Red (at least not in the respects where Red and Green most importantly differed). The genesis of Ada 95, despite your rather confused equation, is that first a requirements document was written, which was very much foucssed on the revision requests that had been received. As one of the authors of this document, I cannot remember Red coming up at any point during writing the requirements. Then, given these requirements, a contract was let to Intermetrics to design to these requirements, and at that point the design effort, lead by STT, but involving many others of course, was a process of realizing these requirements, which of course were only guideposts, nothing like a full language design. But even in this later design process, I can barely remember Red being considered as a source of inspiration. Most of the critical missing capability in Ada 83 was also missing in GNAT, so mostly Red/Green differences were simply not relevant to the process. Do not assume that everyone agrees with the idea that Red was superior, but too hard to implement. I personally *always* preferred Green from a technical point of view, even allowing for the fact that Green was far more polished and complete than Red.