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-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!d625b1a5!not-for-mail From: Arthur Evans Jr Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular? References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1169588206.234714.312650@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:33:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.17.176.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1169667230 70.17.176.199 (Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:33:50 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:33:50 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8505 Date: 2007-01-24T19:33:50+00:00 List-Id: In article <1169588206.234714.312650@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "kevin cline" wrote: > Ada was > designed by a committee to meet theroetical needs. Not so. Before design of Ada started, about 1970, there was a lengthy period of gathering requirements. Input was solicited from all over, both inside DOD and out, about what should be in the language. DOD published in 1971 a Strawman proposal of language features, followed by a Tinman, an Ironman, and finally a Steelman. Each of these feature requirement documents was widely reviewed by anyone who chose to submit comments, and these comments were studied to produce the next document in the series. Comments came from language design theorists and practitioners, from folks who thought a big program was 5000 lines and from those who thought big was 5,000,000 lines, and from pretty much any one else who chose to participate. Many had extensive experience in large scale software development. During all of this requirements development process, compiler implementation started. In response to an RFP four teams were chosen to implement the language. (I think Tinman was then the latest requirement document.) The designs were evaluated publicly and the two best were told to go on, and later the better of the two completed implementation of what became Ada-83. I may have mis-remembered some of the details; it's been a long time. Was the result perfect? Far from it, but I thought then and still think that Ada-83 was better for large mission-critical applications than any other language then available. BUT: Ada was not designed by a committee, and the needs it was intended to meet were not theoretical. They were very practical. All of that said, much of what was fine in Ada-83 was due to Jean Ichbiah, who led the team that did that implementation. I disagreed with some of Jean's decisions, some times vocally, but I later came to realize that he was usually right. Participation in the Ada design process was one of the high points of my career. Art Evans Distinguished Reviewer for Ada-83 and Ada-95