Re: Software fault forces Ford recall

[IanPage99@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/18/00 12:00:19 GMT Standard Time, P.H.Welch@xxxxxxxxx 
writes:

> I suggest that both concrete syntaxes (syntaces?) be allowed.  We could
>  have a flag to the compiler to say which one to expect - or maybe that
>  could be deduced fairly quickly and automatically?

Peter,

Please don't underestimate the problems of having a language 
with two syntaxes (inability to share code, two manuals, two sets
of training material, etc., etc.)

Also, with the occam experience to focus our hindsight, it should be 
very clear that the problems of introducing *any* new language
to an uncaring world are truly awesome.

Although it only covers a fraction of the syntax, so not all of the 
occam2 syntax and sematics problems have been addressed, the
Handel-C language already exists, has many users, and is being 
pushed towards standardisation. If you do go ahead, it would be
nice, eventually to have just one C-like syntax for occam around!

Whatever your feelings about occam syntax, its ideas are clearly
right and we have found that users do take readily to the C-like syntax
of our occam-like language. There are now 110+ people employed in 
the company exploiting  Handel-C and some wonderful customer
validation, so something must be right somewhere.

With the best will in the world towards occam, I have agreed for
years with Tony Hoare's assertion that "occam really should have 
*been* C"

Prof. Ian Page,
Founder, Celoxica Plc, (formerly ESL Ltd.)
8 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4RT
www.celoxica.com