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: 10 Sep 93 15:49:05 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!progers@ucbvax.Berke
ley.EDU  (Pat Rogers)
Subject: Re: 30 Years
Message-ID: <1993Sep10.114905.6908@sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9309081721.AA18798@manta.nosc.mil> mshapiro@manta.nosc.mil (Michael
 D Shapiro) writes:
>
  [reasonable stuff to this point]

>I believe Ada's acceptance problem is that it requires a high level of
>formality all the time.  It assumes every program must be written in
>maintainable style.  People become uncomfortable when they must work at
>that level of formality all the time.  So they reject Ada, even though
>they probably should use it some of the time.
>

  I followed your discussion until this point.  What is it that
_requires_ this style?  One can write a program in Ada in as "informal"
a manner as desired.  One need not use encapsulation, abstraction, 
even strong typing in Ada.  (Once you're good at it, it doesn't take much
more time, though.)  I beleve people reject Ada out of ignorance and
half-truths, not for technical reasons.

pat rogers