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: <dewar.873678467@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270631723
References: <340E2DC5.25D7@worldnet.att.net>
 <340ebdaf.230366903@news.mindspring.com> <340ED5D8.2DEF6D3@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
 <340ee253.239748688@news.mindspring.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob says

<<Tartan was done as a protest of the complexity of the four
bespoke designs.  It was much simpler; the specification was
about 1/20th as thick as the others (I know, that's not a very
good measure of language complexity).  It was said to be compliant
with Steelman, a claim I was unqualified to evaluate.  (I do
remember John Goodenough saying that our (SofTech's) design
(Blue?) came closer to meeting that goal than did Green or either
of the others, and that we should have been a bit less fanatical
about Steelman.  Hey, how does Ada95 do against Steelman?  It
might be interesting to hear in what major ways Ada95 violates
the old requirements.)>>


One obvious violation is the presence of pointers to procedures, which
were specifically ruled out (for good reason) by Steelman! There are
undoubtedly others, but this comes immediately to mind :-)