Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!beta!a!jlg
From: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F8X: MODULE vs. INCLUDE
Message-ID: <514@a.UUCP>
Date: 11 Mar 88 22:30:39 GMT
References: <1112@ut-emx.UUCP> <6690013@hpclcdb.HP.COM> <1167@ut-emx.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 20
Summary: Implementors as language designers

In article <1167@ut-emx.UUCP>, reeder@ut-emx.UUCP (William P. Reeder) writes:
> I just hate the idea of committees doing design work.  I would like to
> think that the vendors have a small number of folks doing design work,
> most of the team being programmers who implement the design.  There
> are also researchers at universities doing design work.  (Also
> hopefully not by committee.)

I don't like the idea of letting the implementors do the design either.
The people who write compilers often have never written a scientific 
program (I know some who have never SEEN a REAL production code).  How
can you expect these people to design useful extensions to a language
when they have no concept of its use?  

A committee is the only workable way to design language extensions.
Both users and implementors are required in order to develope features
that are both useful to the users and possible to implement.  (Of course,
the size of the committee and its composition might be improved.)

J. Giles
Los Alamos