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,d1df6bc3799debed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical, Date: 1997/05/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 241210664 References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com> <5kmek2$9re@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > The reason there were not more Algol-68 compilers, and that for example > by comparison, Ada compilers flourished, is simple. There was not enough > commercial pressure to generate these compilers...[snip]...In the end > the "failure" of Algol-68 was a marketing issue, not a technical one. I stand corrected. From what I've read, however, that language has been lambasted because of its too-frequent use of automatic type coercions. Opinion? Do you disagree with the argument that a language is "bad" - specifically, Ada - if it's difficult to implement a compiler for it? Do you disagree with Les Hatten who said that Ada shouldn't be used, because it has a "large number" of interpretation requests? Do you disagree with Tony Hoare's assessment that Ada should not be used for systems where high reliability is required? Inquiring minds want to know... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271