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,dd4586b9dd51c602
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: general-purpose vs. domain-specific programming languages
Date: 1998/01/07
Message-ID: <dewar.884225582@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 313807126
References: <98010512040396@psavax.pwfl.com>
 <gwinn-0701981543510001@dh5152126.res.ray.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 884225734 15492 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Joe said

<<Why did they do such a thing?  For expediency.  Perl was intended to ease
the writing of small one-shot programs, not the implementation of large
and critical systems.  So, perl has essentially no type checking, has lots
of string handling and pattern-matching features, et al, while in Ada one
would have to invent all that.>>

Unless of course you are using GNAT, which comes with a full SNOBOL4
compatible pattern matching library that is much *more* powerful than what
is in Perl!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies