This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++ "with" keyword
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: aph at redhat dot com, dewar at gnat dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:17:55 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword
> 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.