Re: Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Mar8171548@world.std.com> 
  srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:

> . . .
>   Looking at the people involved with Ada9X, there are very few people with
>a business stake in the language (DoD types), or a great track record in
>promoting Ada in the non-Mandated world (vendor types).  

This sentence is a bit hard to understand.  But my best guess of what
it means is quite far from the truth.  It seems that you have become
so frustrated with the Ada and DoD worlds that you have stopped talking
to anyone in those worlds.  That's fine, but then you should try to
refrain from generalizing about them.  Rest assured that *many* of the
people involved in Ada 9X have a *huge* stake in the language.  Some
of the best people involved work for small companies that are quite likely
to go belly-up if Ada 9X is a failure.  And those that work for
larger companies have a very large personal stake in the success of Ada 9X,
both economic and career-wise.

> . . . From the outside,
>one could make the case that the Ada9X effort is doing its best to improve
>the language while maintaining the status quo with regards to a language
>that too many in the non-Mandated world can ignorantly, but easily, dismiss.

You could make that case, I suppose, but you would almost 
certainly lose it, since the evidence to support it is incredibly
flimsy; the case on the opposite side is much stronger.

>   I highly doubt that many on the Ada9X effort ever though the following
>thought in any of their deliberations:  "If I was spending my own money on
>this, what would I want".  

You may "highly doubt" it, but I wonder on what basis you formed your opinion.
The truth is, in fact, just the opposite.  This question, at least,
I can answer with some authority ;-).  If we were spending our own money,
we would design Ada 9X the way we did design it.  And in any case,
like many people involved in computer science, spending our own money
is not nearly as painful as spending our own time and energy.
It is our express goal, and always has been, that Ada 9X will be the 
language of choice for systems programmers who have a choice.

> . . .From this point of view, the original posting's
>call for more features in Ada9X that allows better competition with C++
>(and Smalltalk) should be heeded.

There are many ways to skin a cat.  In many cases, imitation is not
the most effective strategy.  Why choose Ada 9X if it makes the same
mistakes that C++ does?  We should learn from the strengths and
weaknesses of other languages, and advance the state of the art, 
not solidify it around a 1985-vintage design.

Like others, I welcome your efforts to "wake up" the Ada community.
But you only serve to dilute your message by making unnecessary
generalizations based on lack of direct knowledge.  If you really
care, why not try to meet a few of the people involved with the Ada 9X
project?  If you don't, then don't dilute your message by making
unwarranted claims about us.

>Greg Aharonian

S. Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com
Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138