Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "Noalias" warning and questions
Message-ID: <67@obie.UUCP>
Date: 21 Feb 88 20:31:28 GMT
References: <8012@elsie.UUCP> <10055@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Organization: UinTech, Layton, UT
Lines: 14
Summary: Another Ada?  All committee languages look like Ada!

In article <10055@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, cjc@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Chris Calabrese[rs]) writes:
> We're not trying to create another ada, are we?

All languages designed by committe look like Ada.  If you don't
believe this, look at a book on Algol-68, or ANSI standardized PL/1
(the full implementation, not the G subset that everyone with a brain
actually produces a compiler for).  Look at FORTRAN-88.  It would
appear that committees cannot produce a working language that has less
than 5,000 largely unused and unwanted mis-features.

-- 
    /\              -  "Against Stupidity,  -    {backbones}!
   /\/\  .    /\    -  The Gods Themselves  -  utah-cs!utah-gr!
  /    \/ \/\/  \   -   Contend in Vain."   -  uplherc!sp7040!
 / U i n T e c h \  -       Schiller        -     obie!wes