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=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 29 Jul 93 18:04:22 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!news
.den.mmc.com!iplmail!woodym@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Woody Meeker)
Subject: Re: Ada is not a failure.
Message-ID: <1993Jul29.180422.5662@iplmail.orl.mmc.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

     So much of Ted Holden's post is false and intentionally inflammatory, that
 
it isn't worth refuting his statements line by line.  There are a couple of
points worth noting, however.

     The commercial success of C/C++ as a measure of its technical superiority 
over Ada has roughly the same validity as the commercial success of DOS/Windows
as a measure of technical superiority over OS/2, i.e. none.  In fact, the
relationship is inverse.  The truth of the matter is that, like DOS, C/C++ has
gained entrenchment as a market "standard", and actually serves as an impedi-
ment to progress through monopolization.  This does not stop its proponents 
from drawing the self-serving conclusion that success equals superiority.

     A second point worth noting is that the title of the thread, "Ada is not 
a failure.", is representative of a defensive attitude that seems to prevail 
among Ada users and proponents.  I certainly don't subscribe to Holden's
assertion that denial equals guilt, but defensiveness often sounds like guilt.

     Ada proponents (myself included) ought to recognize that language bias 
most often springs from language familiarity, and that religious flame wars do 
nothing to diminish anti-Ada bias.  The problem of Ada acceptance is a 3 stage
catch 22:

     1. Programmers (and indirectly project managers) do anything possible to
        avoid the use of Ada, even for DoD projects, because they are familiar
        with and comfortable with their own language.

     2. DoD implements a mandate, intended to enforce Ada use.  This should
        force programmers to gain familiarity with Ada and help to overcome 
        the problem of acceptance.

     3. The programmer cops an attitude as a result of the mandate, and becomes
        even more determined not to accept Ada.  If he is forced to use it, he
        does so grudgingly, continuing the paradigm of his old language, and 
        finding the new restrictions inconvenient.  He uses this experience as
        an example of the difficulty of using Ada.  Back to stage 1.

     Recognition of the nature of this problem doesn't solve it, but it should
help Ada proponents to take a less defensive posture.  Let's ignore the flames
and anti-Ada biases and try to educate (God, I sound like a liberal) the non-
Ada partisans.  I especially enjoy conversion stories (e.g. how Ada saved my
ass after another language failed me, etc).

				    Woody



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%  Woody Meeker                                      [][][][][][][][][][][][]  
%
%  Martin Marietta ESC, Orlando FL                 [] w o o d y[][][][][][][]  
%
%  Voice:[407] 356-8839/5940                       [][][][][][] m e e k e r[]  
%
%  Email: Woody-Meeker@orl.mmc.com                 [][][][][][][][][][][][]    
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
"Before software can be reusable it first has to be usable." - Ralph Johnson