home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!nitelog!michael.hagerty
- From: michael.hagerty@nitelog.net.netcom.com (Michael Hagerty)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
- Subject: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community
- Message-ID: <54.237.uupcb@nitelog.net.netcom.com>
- Date: 13 Sep 92 16:45:00 GMT
- Distribution: world
- Organization: Nitelog BBS - Monterey, CA - 408-655-1096
- Reply-To: michael.hagerty@nitelog.net.netcom.com (Michael Hagerty)
- Lines: 31
-
-
-
- Michael Feldman writes:
-
- MF. To me, this is yet another indicator of the Ada community's utter failure
- MF. to foster Ada's penetration into fields where its use would be quite
- MF. appropriate. The compiler prices shown in Rich Pattis' post yesterday
- MF. are only one aspect of this shameful arrogance and myopia.
- MF.
- MF. Anyone who thinks that Ada is being held back chiefly by not supporting
- MF. multiple inheritance is barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not Ada.
- MF. The problem is us, folks.
-
- Oh, I agree... The problem is not the language. I do note with amazement,
- more than a year after the date beyond which all programming within DOD was
- to be done in Ada, that the services have done less than one would expect
- to embrace the mandate. The question was raised at Tri-Ada, "Should the
- mandate be rescinded?" My answer is that the services have chosen to do
- pretty much as they choose, with or without the mandate.
-
- It is difficult to imagine what would cause the services to wholeheartedly
- adopt Ada, short of its use being an element of command inspection, with
- loss of funding/termination of programs as the stick. There isn't much in
- the way of a perceived carrot... Dropping the mandate certainly will not
- improve Ada's usage and keeping a paper tiger doesn't appear to work
- either.
-
- Suggestions, anyone? Regards, Mikey
- ---
- . JABBER v1.2 #42 . A big enough hammer fixes anything
-
-