From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!ztivax!tumuc!guug!pcsbst!horst
From: horst@pcsbst.UUCP (horst)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: pro Ada argument?
Message-ID: <1149@pcsbst.UUCP>
Date: 4 Dec 89 13:04:21 GMT
Reply-To: aida!horst@pcsbst.UUCP (horst kern)
Organization: PCS GmbH, Pfaelzer-Wald-Str. 36, 8000 Muenchen; West-Germany
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The recent discussion initiated by Ted Holdon's article surprised me
a bit. Nobody answered the argument that I thought would be THE one
in favor of Ada:

  It's not the programmers that decide which language to use in the future

In the European Market we expect to have laws in 1992 that resemble the
American Laws of Product Responsibility. As far as I know, those can make
an implementor responsible for any consequences of using an implementation
language which is not considered the best choice. And there are strong
signals that Ada will be the default 'best choice' for lawyers. Is this
not true for the US?

Regards
 Horst     hk@pcs.com