From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12574 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2003 12:18:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12558 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 12:18:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 6 Jan 2003 12:18:06 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 1C290F28E4; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:17:55 -0500 (EST) To: aph@redhat.com, dewar@gnat.com Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-Id: <20030106121755.1C290F28E4@nile.gnat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:07:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 > 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.