Re: Hoare's gripes about Ada (was Re: Ada and C++ ...)

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura. net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!cs.umd.edu!alex@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Alex Blakemore)]

In article <nbhCCnzpL.1D8@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
> before using Hoare as an authority on language design, can
> you please enumerate for me the languages that Hoare himself has designed
> that have proven to be commercial successes?

There are many other measures for success than the marketplace,
especially in academia where the search for truth and knowledge
is supposed to be the goal.

> 'Cause personally I can't
> think of anything significant he's done in the field of language design.

They didn't give him a Turing award by accident.

He made important contributions to program language design, when it
was an emerging unstructured field (not like now:-) He developed some
of the first techniques for formally defining the semantics of
programs and programming languages - and for proving them correct.
His ideas led to a more disciplined approach for language development,
and programming methods (such as structured programming).

Even if we cant feasible prove correctness of most programs, knowing
what techniques are amenable to formal reasoning helps lead to better
languages and programs.

He made contributions to the field of concurrent programming (CSP and
monitors) that hold up well today and inspired "commercial languages"
like Ada and Ada9X.  Occam has had reasonable success as the language
for programming transputers, and its about as close to CSP as you can get.

He helped shape our field and point it in a direction based more upon
engineering, mathematics, logic and science - and away from one based
totally on ad hoc heuristics and emotion.  Much of what is good in Ada
builds upon work done by Tony Hoare (and many others) in the early years.

He may have done other things. This is just what I remember off the top
of my head.  What original contributions have you made to the field?

> He's just some old fart who ran out of original ideas a couple of decades
> ago and who's only real claim to fame these days is an idiotic speech

We will all be old farts someday (hopefully) and that speech
is far from his claim to fame. In fact, its probably low down in the noise leve
l.
I'm glad to hear that he changed his mind about Ada, and sorry to
see how misused that speech has been.

> it's not as if Hoare is trumpeting the virtues of
> C/C++. If he was alarmed by Ada because he thought it was too complex to
> be proven correct and therefore unsuitable for controlling nuclear reactors,
> do you honestly think he'd deem C++ or C SAFER? 

I also seriously doubt he would have much good to say about C or C++.
I wish he would speak his feelings about C in a public forum, but
after watching the effect of his cautionary speech about the complexity of EARL
Y
Ada designs, I wouldn't blame him for being reluctant to take a public stand
about a programming language again.

> John R. Moore is an idiot.

The John Moore I know is definitely not, but I imagine its a different
person.  I hope you know more about this man than you do about
professor Hoare.

P.S. I enjoyed you Ada to C++ translator posting though.

-- 
Alex Blakemore       alex@cs.umd.edu        NeXT mail accepted
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Without an engaged and motivated human being at the keyboard,
the computer is just another dumb box."      William Raspberry