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: 17 May 93 17:32:39 GMT
From: tinton.ccur.com!cjh@princeton.edu  (Christopher J. Henrich)
Subject: Re: Alsys, how insignificant is 18,000?
Message-ID: <1993May17.173239.64@tinton.ccur.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In <EMERY.93May14115044@goldfinger.mitre.org> emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David
 Emery) writes:

>>People are choosing C++ technology over Ada, with their own money (and

>I'd like to see some studies demonstrating:
>	1.  People make these decisions based on cost-effectiveness,
>	    or any other rational process, and
>	2.  C++ _is_ more cost-effective than Ada, C, FORTRAN, BLISS,
>	    or any other language.

>My belief is that choice of language is dictated more by perceived
>popularity than any technical factor.

Quite likely.  And therefore, the Ada community has to make a lot
more noise in the marketplace than we have been.

It's clear that the marketplace does not always choose the
technically superior alternative.  Nor does it always choose
the most "cost effective" choice.  This is especially so, when the
issue of cost-effectiveness is unclear.  So Ada could well fail,
for reasons that don't look at all like "the real issue" to most
of the readers of cmp.lang.ada.

Regards,
Chris Henrich