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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mlokai!mack
From: mack@mlokai.DEC
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: ADA Professionalism Document
Message-ID: <1624@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 08:33:54 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1624
Posted: Fri Dec  6 08:33:54 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Dec-85 02:54:10 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



    The problem I have with the document (and it seems, the problem that 
    several respondants have with the document):

	Its existence implies that ADA is so different from other lang-
	uages that it completely redefines the standard of software
	professionalism.

    ADA is different from other languages in a number of significant ways,
    the most important being the possibility of directly implementing both
    abstract data structures, multi-tasking, and (at least theoretically) 
    true parallel processing.  Now, object-oriented, "architecturally pure"
    programming is not only possible, but directly supported by a language.

    If we understood object-oriented programming precisely (not just gener-
    ally), then a document could be put together to define precisely what 
    object-oriented programming is.   If this were considered the only right
    way to program, we might even dare to call it a software design standard.
    However, extending it into a complete model of software professionalism 
    is ridiculous.  (Even this paragraph has a couple of big if's).

    I suppose I am biased by my own situation.  While many of the people in 
    this newsgroup are doing work related to the military, and are therefore in
    some way a "captive audience" of ADA :-), I am using it in a non-military
    (commercial/engineering) setting, and trying to show that its benefits 
    outweigh the costs of learning it and using it.  The people I am working 
    with are using all sorts of languages: BASIC, BLISS, C, FORTRAN, PL/1, 
    PASCAL, you name it.  A document like this is likely to make it harder 
    for me to do.  ("What's this?  Is everybody going to have to learn to 
    program all over again?  No thank you!") 

					Ralph Mack
					Applied Technology Software/Systems
					Digital Equipment Corp.

	"Any ideas expressed here are just my jaw working overtime, and
	may not represent rational thought, much less the point of view
	of Digital Equipment Corporation..."