Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!microsoft!bobal
From: bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F8X: MODULE vs. INCLUDE
Message-ID: <1294@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 88 16:16:07 GMT
References: <1112@ut-emx.UUCP> <6690013@hpclcdb.HP.COM> <1167@ut-emx.UUCP> <3038@metavax.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobal@microsoft, or uunet!microsoft!bobal
Organization: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
Lines: 38

In article <3038@metavax.UUCP> chris@metavax.UUCP (Chris Collins ) writes:
>I have to agree with Mr. Reeder here, in that standardizing committee's
>should not do language design.  The reasoning is that the committee,
>I would guess, does not go home, implement the language change, and 
>then use it for a while to see if it is really a good idea. 
>Secondly, it also means that changes are, again, hopefully, out a real
>need from a user, instead of any other reason (it looks good; it might
>help it compete with other languages; etc.)
>
And J. Giles of Los Alamos writes:
>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.)

This is a basic dichotomy which is one of the reasons why the committee
is having such trouble.  I tend to agree with the first view,  because I
have an overriding faith in the marketplace over forty people's view of
what is right and what is wrong with a language.  Also, I know for a 
fact that the committee is having trouble defining certain features in
the language because there is no existing implementation out there from
which to get good experience and that worries me: what happens when we
discover some really big problem with the precision stuff (and we are
finding new problems at every meeting)?  Once it is a standard, I for one
am going to be pretty embarrassed when we discover some really big
problem with one of these new features.

Bob Allison
Microsoft
Member (kicking and screaming all the way) of X3J3

My opinions only.  Your mileage may vary in actual road conditions.