Re: Do really Ada give you a camel when you expected a horse?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Sun, 07 Oct 2012 05:19:33 +0200, Dennis Lee Bieber  
<wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> a écrit:
> 	No mention of COBOL and CODASYL? (Or the DBTG and network database
> systems?)
>
> 	In comparison to COBOL, Ada was just designed by a team, not a
> committee -- a committee may have approved the design, but how many
> languages are still the domain of a single person? Even BASIC is
> accredited to Kemeny and Kurtz (sp?).

I'm near to finish reading this paper, and they introduce this issue. They  
acknowledge they have them‑self designed Lua in a kind of committee, but a  
small committee, and the “small” looks important to them. By the way, I'm  
not sure to know what's the exact difference between a team and a  
committee. Obviously, the bigger the committee is, the harder it is to get  
an unanimity (I know it's just smalltalk). Well, there don't seems to be  
that much turnover with Ada's committee, isn't it? Looks good in that  
regard: not too big (thanks to the proposal submission process), not too  
small (all main and serious actors belongs to it), and stable though time  
as far as I know.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University