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: 103376,790d824907970cc3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Exception Propagation Date: 1999/06/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 489873987 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <7jjbl4$n79$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jh857$ej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <375CC549.7EDFB885@spam.com> <0nc73.5376$y6.3195132@WReNphoon3> <7jlud1$l76$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough) writes: > I've noticed a number of times that you have had second thoughts on some > of the design decisions you made ... Not so many, I think. I have lots of ideas about how to improve Ada in non-upward-compatible ways. But that wasn't my job during the Ada 9X process. Upward compatibility was a high priority, and rightly so, and given that constraint, I can only think of a few design decisions that I now think were clearly wrong. Besides, I can blame it all on Tucker. He always had the final say -- although it's surprising that he and I almost always agreed (sometimes after week-long arguments). ;-) >... (or maybe Robert Dewar did :-). Certainly Robert and I don't always agree -- but I think we *usually* do. ;-) >...I was > wondering if you have in mind a better process for establishing standards, > so that the problems described above wouldn't result? Well, I suppose you could avoid standardizing anything until it's perfect, and you know it's perfect. ;-) No, I don't know how to design a perfect programming language, any more than I know how to write a large, complicated computer program without any bugs. The art of programming language design is still in its infancy. Sometimes I think Ada 83 would have turned out better if it had been implemented and used seriously for a couple of years before standardization. That would have improved the language in some ways, but that approach also has drawbacks. Look at the delay in C++ standardization, and look at the portability problems as C++ compilers struggle to move their dialects toward the one true standard. Some folks would say that formal definitions are the key. They might help, but I suspect they're no panacea. Note also that a good-enough standard is better than no standard, and might be better than a better-but-later standard. It all depends. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.