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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 26 Aug 93 11:06:49 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!wellerd@ucbvax.Berke
ley.EDU  (David Weller)
Subject: Re: 30 Years
Message-ID: <1993Aug26.070649.12465@sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9308251529.AA07664@manta.nosc.mil> mshapiro@MANTA.NOSC.MIL (Michael
 D Shapiro) writes:
>
>Sorry, I keep forgetting that people don't think the same way I do
>about what a software project entails.  I count a software project as
>lasting from the time people start coming up with a blurb describing
>what it does until the last maintained version is turned off.  This is
>roughly the management paradigm I proposed in my article "Software is a
>product . . . NOT!" in the September 1992 IEEE Computer magazine (p.
>128). 

I recommend this article to many people.  It's posted in my office. :-)

>Because I believe Ada cannot always be used cost-effectively for small
>or short projects (using my definition of a project), I do advocate
>that more appropriate languages be used for small or short projects
>where they are more cost-effective.  We need some guidelines as to
>where the cost-effectiveness breakpoints come.  I think the language
>choice really does not matter on true small/short projects because no
>one will need to look at the source code except the developers.  Ever.
>

IMHO, you just defined "research project", in which case, I couldn't
agree more.  It's only when we have a process (notice, not product :-)
where the user /= development organization that we actually need _some_
form of standardization.

>Probably what we should really hope that someone is looking for the
>successor to Ada and C++ and {insert your other favorite language here}
>that takes the most appropriate properties of each and combines them
>into a new tailorable language.  As I see it, this language should have
>multiple formality levels.  High formality would be required for huge
>systems.  Informality would be allowed for throwaway programs.
>In-between systems would need to conform to some intermediate formality
>levels.

This is certainly agreeable, with the caveat that the definition of
"throwaway" be VERY CLEARLY defined.  I've watched too many little
software projects that were labeled throwaway (or worse, "prototype")
grow into 100KSLOC+ long-term projects.

>
>>From what I have read and heard, I believe that Ada9X will not meet
>these requirements of my proposed new language.  Does anyone know if
>anyone is working (even on just the requirements) on a next generation
>highly formal language for huge systems that can be used easily and
>less formally on non-huge systems?  I have the feeling that no current
>mainline language can do the job.  If we only continue bickering about
>current languages, we'll delay movement toward meeting our real future
>needs.  Since I feel that Ada is the most advanced language currently
>around for some of the needed concepts, this group may be a reasonable
>discussion arena.
>

Well, there's always DRAGOON :-)


-- 
type My_Disclaimer is new Standard.Disclaimer with record
	AJPO, SEI : Cognizance := Disavow_All_Knowledge;
end record;--)