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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ncar!ico!rcd From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada Summary: what's wrong with playing fair? Message-ID: <1990Dec20.015945.24282@ico.isc.com> Date: 20 Dec 90 01:59:45 GMT References: <2449@sparko.gwu.edu> <9700@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> <2455@sparko.gwu.edu> Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO List-Id: emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) writes: > >From: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) > >I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in one of the military > >service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university that got > >federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach > >Ada or have their money taken away. > > Actually, I think there's something to be said for this idea... (I think there's something to be said for it too...but we probably don't agree on what should be said.:-) I think that it's high time Ada was cut loose from its life-support system of government-mandated ramming-down- our-throats and allowed to live or die. I'm serious. If Ada can't sur- vive on its own, it's not viable. (For the record, although I'm not much of an Ada fan, I do think Ada *can* survive. It won't be the top language, but it has its place(s).) In fact, I think that some of the mandated use of Ada has damaged its growth. People look at it and say "oh, that's only for government work, and it's all tied up in bureaucracy...we don't want it." >...Even > more, I think that any DARPA or DoD-funded project should submit a > waiver request to do their work in something besides Ada... This is the first step on a slippery path to a very uncomfortable level of government control. Again, if Ada is so desirable, why does it have to be forced? Let the folks who are doing the research choose the language they find appropriate to the tasks they need to do. I can see obvious cases for using at least C, C++, Icon, LISP, Ada, and assembly language in various aspects of research. As for using Ada for the mere sake of single- language consistency...well, see what Emerson had to say about consistency. > ...but there are a lot of > research projects that could be used on gov't systems, except for the > fact that they're implemented in languages that create a significant > maintenance/adaptability problem (e.g. C, lisp). I don't see that either C or LISP have any inherent maintenance or adaptability problems. Seems like it's more a problem of excessive narrowness or rigidity in gov't systems if they can't handle multi- lingual software. Note that the position I'm taking in the latter part of this posting is not anti-Ada, but anti-single-language. The idea that one programming language can be suitable for all programming tasks is bogus from the word go. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."