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: 13 Sep 93 16:27:33 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.co m!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fred J. McCall 575-5185) Subject: Re: 30 Years Message-ID: <1993Sep13.162733.24538@mksol.dseg.ti.com> List-Id: Pat Rogers (progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu) wrote: : In article <9309081721.AA18798@manta.nosc.mil> mshapiro@manta.nosc.mil (Micha el 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. And this is the sort of remark that causes language flamewars and leaves people wondering just why it is that *some* Ada advocates can't justify their positions any better than by the old, traditional Usenet approach of "either you agree with me or you are stupid and ill-informed" -- which is pretty much what Mr Roger's statement equates to. Just the sort of approach to lead people to want to reevaluate the use of languages that have worked just fine for them in the past. All it does is leave the propronent themself looking like they have been fed on "ignorance and half-truths". Is it *really* so hard to avoid these sorts of silly judgements? In some groups, it seems that it is. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.