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: fac41,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,bdaddde464f6e704 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dad65365cb2b3396 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,bdaddde464f6e704 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Subject: Re: The disturbing myth of Eiffel portability Date: 1996/12/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202094304 sender: pcg@osfb.aber.ac.uk references: organization: Prifysgol Cymru, Aberystwyth newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >>> "jsa" == Jon S Anthony writes: piercarl> Ahhh, but it's not as simple as that. In part because it's piercarl> often not clear what is the ``current'' incarnation of a piercarl> language; in part because, and that was my main point piercarl> w.r.t. to the Eiffel-Eiffel 3 distinction, to me Eiffel 3 is piercarl> logically a branch on the Eiffel descendancy tree, not a piercarl> linear descendant, and that continuining to call it ``Eiffel'' piercarl> is thus somewhat misleading, for it implies a degree of piercarl> continuity that is not there. jsa> I would tend to disagree with this. Probably in general, but jsa> certainly for the two particular cases mentioned. There is really jsa> no issue or problem or whatever concerning what is the current jsa> "incarnation" of either Ada or Eiffel. Again, the issue, is whether we are discussing ``Ada'' the language or "Ada" the label. Your argument here is that the name is used nowadays officially to indicate the more recent language of that name: jsa> For Ada, ISO/IEC 8652:1995 explicitly refers to: "Information jsa> Technology -- Programming Languages -- Ada". Pretty clear. For jsa> Eiffel, the direct analogue is "Eiffel The Language", which does jsa> not say "Eiffel-3 The Language" or whatever. Too bad. To me that is both misleading and counterproductive, as argued later, for I don't think that in either case there is a indeed: jsa> In both cases there is a _great_ deal of continuity there and I jsa> don't see anything particularly misleading about the unqualified jsa> names. Well, to me Ada 83 and Ada 95 are very different languages, rather more so than F77 vs. F90, for example; to a large extent one could argue that the differences between Ada 83 and Ada 95 are almost as large as those between ``C'' and ``C++'', and surely way more fundamental than those between say C++ 1.x (nee` C84 apparently) and C++ 3.x; roughly equivalent to those between Modula 2 and Modula 3, perhaps. In particular I see a great deal of PR value in underlining that Ada 95 is a rather different beast in scope and possibilities from Ada 83, in part because Ada 83 has not been a roaring success, and it has suffered a reputation as a not-quite OO language. After all Ada 95 *is* a greatly improved language, and that should be stressed, both for accuracy and for expediency. For the Eiffel-Eiffel 3 case it is some vital details of the language, rather than its scope as in the ``Ada'' case, that have changed greatly, turning it into a far more industrial strength tool than before. I have seen some rather strong complaint in this newsgroup in recent times about the limitations of Eiffel/Eiffel 2, and these limitations _have_ been repaired in Eiffel 3 (at the cost of a considerable loss in eelgance, but then that seems patently irrelevant for market success). Again, given that Eiffel 3 is greatly improved over Eiffel/Eiffel 2, which did suffer from some important limitations, underlining the difference seems expedient, not just correct. Yes, Ada 95 includes (mostly) as a subset Ada 83; and Eiffel 3 includes (mostly) as a subset Eiffel; but the extensions (OO, low level facilities) are rather more essential than incidental, in both cases. Thus in summary in both cases the programming styles and/or the scope of applications possible in Ada 95 and Eiffel 3 wrt to their predecessors are so vastly different that pretending there is substantial continuity as in using identically the same name as the previous version is not just misleading but counterproductive. Let's be facetious: a bit as if the Ford Mondeo had been instead named the Edsel 92 (or whatever year it was introduced), or perhaps as if the 32 bit Microsoft OS had been called Windows NT to underline a tenuous link with Windows 3 :-).