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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10a146,5dbc5c834131d614
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,374e3d493349dc8f
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-15 23:01:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!news0.telusplanet.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Sender: blaak@blight.transcend.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Language design by by committee ( was Re: Try J# ( was Re: J# is
 there ))
References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de>
 <46vast4p1qnb0e8bt59v4e8616hacvcgtd@4ax.com>
 <Eojx7.4111$gT6.2494200@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>
 <3BC5C49F.B1386292@ao_spam_nix.de>
 <mnVx7.45856$WW.2936617@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <Gb2y7.13108$gT6.7666011@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>
 <q6vhst885e9fiu32uqcbeb784rknhagf6h@4ax.com>
 <dale-ADACD2.14380614102001@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
 <nc6istc54r252g98893pn2itn3875birhm@4ax.com> <uzo6s26q7.fsf@telus.net>
 <uelo4kc1t.fsf@wanadoo.fr> <GLA684.Au6@bath.ac.uk>
From: Ray Blaak <blaak@telus.net>
Message-ID: <m3n12sp1l7.fsf@blight.transcend.org>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:01:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.194.18.204
X-Trace: news0.telusplanet.net 1003212066 207.194.18.204 (Tue,
 16 Oct 2001 00:01:06 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:01:06 MDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.programmer:102071
 comp.lang.java.advocacy:30883 comp.lang.ada:14628
Date: 2001-10-16T06:01:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Tim Tyler <tt@iname.com> writes:
> Here's a quick stab at explaining it: the creative process often works
> best when all the elements involved are connected together by high-speed
> axons.  When some of the communications channels involved have to go onto
> the speech level, across to other individuals and back again, everything
> is slowed down, and garbled.  Also a collection of individuals is less
> likely to behave as a coherent unit that an collection of an individuals
> neurons.  The result is perhaps more likely to be an "average" - a
> compromise between different design aims.

This is quite possible, and I have encountered this before. On the other hand,
a group of people very often catches things the lone genious overlooked.

On yet the other hand, it still shouldn't matter. Both lone genious or the
committee might have produced solid gold or complete crap. You cannot know
until you check.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
blaak@telus.net                                The Rhythm has my soul.