Re: Ada9X Features

[Michael Hagerty <mhagerty@FNOC.NAVY.MIL>]

On Sun, 11 Sep 1994, Michael Feldman <mfeldman@SEAS.GWU.EDU> wrote:

MF> This discussion of "creeping featurism" in Ada 9X points up just
  > how difficult a consensus process is. Everyone says "this language
  > is getting too big; we don't need all this junk; leave _my_
  > favorite stuff in, please."

Much, much, much horse trading goes on in building a consensus on a
standards committee.  I recall one instance on the Pascal committee
where, in order to get the set extensions I so dearly wanted, I went
along with adding complex numbers...  Even then, set complement was
whacked way down when the rest of the committee guessed what was
required in generating the complement of the null set!  Shucks...

Almost every language (he says qualifiedly) has parts that are unused
in common applications.  The goal is to build something like the
mid-scale swiss army knife: all of the things you need daily, some of
what you may need occasionally, but still small enough to carry in
your pocket, so that you will have it when you need it <everyday>.

I think of PL/I as the mega-swiss army knife; you know, the one in
the case that is so big that you could not imagine anyone schlepping
that puppy around...  Ada, in its current implementations, is more
like a ShopMate power tool.

Even Lincoln's comment about "pleasing all of the people" in mind,
there is the issue of timeliness and "hitting the market window".  I
recognize that standard Pascal's position in the market was harmed
by not having an extended language standard at the time the C weenies
were running amok.  Promises of a C standard right around the corner
were believed only by those who had never worked on a standard, but
it did have the effect of spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

Regards, Mikey <michael.hagerty@nitelog.com>