From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 8 Aug 91 08:38:32 GMT
From: netcomsv!jls@decwrl.dec.com  (Jim Showalter)
Subject: Re: Ada vs. C Comparison Data ?
Message-ID: <1991Aug08.083832.21573@netcom.COM>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund) writes:

>Of course, this is like sugar companies showing health risks in
>artificial sweeteners, tobacco companies showing no health risks for
>cigarettes, etc.  The Air Force has basically been ordered to find no
>exceptions for ADA use, so it's no surprise that they have.

Funny, I don't recall any such wording in the charter for the group
the did the study. Must have been in the fine print somewhere. The
charter I read seemed pretty straightforward: compare the two languages
and see if there is any compelling reason to weaken the Ada mandate in
favor of C++ for at least some classes of applications. Nothing at all
about finding no exceptions to Ada use, whitewashing, or any of the rest
of it.

>I imagine ATT could sponsor a study
>and find the opposite result.

Not if they were honest about it. It ultimately boils down to whether or
not you believe the people conducting the study are scientists or ideologues.
If they're scientists, then they'll do the right thing no matter what. If
they're ideologues, then they should be removed from the study and replaced
with scientists. Since I've never met any of the people who did the Air Force
study, I extend to them the benefit of the doubt.
-- 
*** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: Jim Showalter, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *