Article View: comp.sw.components
Article #227Re: Are "production" programming languages are dinosaurs?
From: Richard O'Keefe
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1989 10:42
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1989 10:42
15 lines
1337 bytes
1337 bytes
In article <16160@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>, rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes: : This is a cheap shot. C has been developed in the natural sequence, namely : "try it first, then standardize it." The fact that Ada was standardized : before there was even an honest working compiler for it--let alone any : useful experience with the language--is such a massive act of monstrous : stupidity that even now, years later, I (and most other programming-lang- : uage folks) have trouble believing it was done that way. Believe it. How did you think COBOL was produced? The BSI/ISO committee working on a Prolog standard aren't quite that silly, but they have consistently taken the attitude "never mind what people happen to be _using_ already, it's what we like or don't like that counts". (Would you believe that the error handling construct is called "block"?)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2309@munnari.oz.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!okReferences:
<929@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> <30@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> <16160@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Are "production" programming languages are dinosaurs? Message-ID: <2309@munnari.oz.au> Date: 5 Oct 89 10:42:17 GMT References: <929@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> <30@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> <16160@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au Lines: 15