Re: c++ "with" keyword

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

> a.  Algol 68 was not implemented at the time it was specified

True also of COBOL-90, C++, Ada

But in any case why is this bad? It may simply mean that you have done a
good job of specification and have managed to do that earlier. There is no
inherent merit in delaying specification. Indeed in general in software,
the concept of specify before implementation is not usually considered
a bad thing :-)

> b.  Full Algol 68 was hard to implement given the resources available

Well yes, so what? That's not an argument for delaying its specification
until it was implemented.

> c.  The difficuly of implementing the full language hurt its sucess

But it would not have been implemented at all if it had not been specified
and published by WG2.1, so again this is not an argument for delaying
specification.

Part of the trouble with modern complex languages is that they are not
one-person-hobbyist-working-in-their-spare-time-to-make-prototype projects.
So in practice large teams are needed for implementation. That makes it
even more essential to have clear specifications.

Your argument that somehow Algol-68 (or any other language) is harmed
by accurate early specification in detail is definitely not convincing.