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: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-07 15:45:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.ucsd.edu!not-for-mail From: Dr Chaos Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Followup-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:45:55 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Univ of Calif San Diego Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> <254c16a.0305011035.13133e8d@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305020516.bdba239@posting.google.com> <82347202.0305021418.4719da45@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305060521.400f1d80@posting.google.com> <82347202.0305061103.2ddd98e4@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305070504.6866e7a3@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu X-Trace: news1.ucsd.edu 1052347555 18826 132.239.222.85 (7 May 2003 22:45:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news1.ucsd.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:45:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63273 comp.object:62932 comp.lang.ada:37050 misc.misc:14000 Date: 2003-05-07T22:45:55+00:00 List-Id: On 7 May 2003 06:04:07 -0700, soft-eng wrote: > People at Bell Labs liked "B", and started using it. It > picked up direction and momentum, and with some work > from Dennis Ritchie, ended up as as "NB" (new "B") > and then "C". Even "C" didn't start off in any > kind of stable form. There were many early changes > and revisions. And there weren't for other languages? That's silly. > In fact, that may have been the major underlying > strength of C -- it was designed by people who > were also using it. They *had* to make it usable. > (As opposed to Ichbiah, who *had* to make it impressive > to a committee.) In fact, the languages B and C were > so evolution driven that they did not have a chicken-and-egg > problem of compilers-and-language variety. From the > early stages, the languages had compilers written in > themselves! If you are doing something complex enough > like writing a compiler in a language you are designing, you > will of course end up making the language usable. No, you will end up with a language which is good for writing its own compiler in if the mindset of the users is similar to the language developer. There are many cases where that is wildly inappropriate: Ada is one of those. Bell Labs researchers set out to design an operating system. That was pretty good. They made a language along the way. It was OK for writing the operating system. That which they intentionally designed and thought was important came out better than stuff that happens along the way.