Re: Recommendations on software RFP/RFQs???

Re: Recommendations on software RFP/RFQs???

[Magnus Kempe]

Matt Whiting writes:
: 
: My organization has decided to standardize on C and C++ ...

How a company can decide to *standardize* on C++ --a language which is
far from being standardized-- is really beyond comprehension.  (I mean
"beyond" on a cosmic scale.)

I've seen the same thing happen in a major (nameless) Swiss company.
The worst part is that several years ago they had chosen Ada *because*
it was a standard and they cared for portability among other things.

Ignorance can only be defeated by education.  The Ada awareness campaign
should also target the companies who want to "standardize".  By the end
of this year,
    Ada WILL BE THE FIRST STANDARDIZED OBJECT-ORIENTED LANGUAGE
with strong typing, exceptions, generics, and tasking since 1983.  There
are hundreds of validated Ada compilers, for practically every platform
one can dream of, and Ada vendors are already introducing the tasking,
real-time, and OO constructs into their compilers.

C++ may become a standard by 1996, but it is unlikely that Borland
and Microsoft will ever conform *entirely* to it; that would be out
of character for these companies.

-- 
Magnus Kempe		"I know not what course others may take, but as for me,
Magnus.Kempe@di.epfl.ch  Give me Liberty... or give me Death!" -- Patrick Henry

Re: Recommendations on software RFP/RFQs???

[David Weller]

In article <1994Sep23.101801@di.epfl.ch>,
Magnus Kempe <Magnus.Kempe@di.epfl.ch> wrote:
>Matt Whiting writes:
>: 
>: My organization has decided to standardize on C and C++ ...
>
>How a company can decide to *standardize* on C++ --a language which is
>far from being standardized-- is really beyond comprehension.  (I mean
>"beyond" on a cosmic scale.)
>
Magnus, while I certainly agree that Ada is a _far_ better language
to "standardize" on, I know that in the US, "standardization" means
something different.  My experience with European firms is that they
are much more concerned about things like ISO standardization and
stability than their American counterparts.  I can't speak for
Australia though.  In the US, vendor-specific extensions and changing
languages are considered a fact of life.  Many companies will select
a certain vendor and version and generally stick with it until it
either becomes 1) IMpossible to write new software with it, or 2) The
compiler company vaporizes.  Notice that one of the other "obvious"
options wasn't listed: When the version of the compiler changes.
I've watched a few companies pay extraordinary (and I mean on a
cosmic scale :-) sums of money to retain their "old" COBOL or Fortran
compilers.  Migrating to a newer version is regarded (usually) as
more costly than gingerly breathing life into the old code.

>I've seen the same thing happen in a major (nameless) Swiss company.
>The worst part is that several years ago they had chosen Ada *because*
>it was a standard and they cared for portability among other things.
>
Hmm, I guess the disease has spread to Europe now too, eh? :-)

>Ignorance can only be defeated by education.  The Ada awareness campaign
>should also target the companies who want to "standardize".  By the end
>of this year,
>    Ada WILL BE THE FIRST STANDARDIZED OBJECT-ORIENTED LANGUAGE
>with strong typing, exceptions, generics, and tasking since 1983.  There
>are hundreds of validated Ada compilers, for practically every platform
>one can dream of, and Ada vendors are already introducing the tasking,
>real-time, and OO constructs into their compilers.
>
Yup.  Of course, we have a bigger hill to go up than most: Ada is a
language that's "OK" to bash/avoid.  So we have a dual problem, we
have to educate folks, AS WELL AS fight an attitude that festers
ignorance.  Ain't we the "good little troopers"? :-)

>C++ may become a standard by 1996, but it is unlikely that Borland
>and Microsoft will ever conform *entirely* to it; that would be out
>of character for these companies.
>
More to the point, it is unlikely ANY company will conform to it.  I
lurk on the C++ group all the time, and there was recently a
discussion about all the things that still must be added to C++ that
goes _beyond_ the ANSI/ISO standard.  Amazingly, this "laundry list"
looked a LOT like Ada 9X's features :-)  Basically, what will happen
is that each company will have something like a -ANSI (or -ISO)
option to preform strict compliance, but I think most companies will
take pride that their compilers go _beyond_ what the ANSI/ISO C++
offers.

Y'know, we could nip this in the bud if somebody wrote a free C++ to
Ada 9X conversion tool (IMHO, an important "attractor" is the
presence of conversion tools like that.  Yeah, I'd heard the Ada-TRAN
speeches before, but my point is that a conversion tool _proves_ that
conversion _can_ be done in a straightforward manner -- it gives
managers warm fuzzies about making a switch).  Anybody doing that?



-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
             Ada 9X -- It doesn't suck                       ||  father's Ada
For all sorts of interesting Ada 9X tidbits, run the command:||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
   ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-) 

Re: Recommendations on software RFP/RFQs???

[whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting)]

In article <35uefe$f26@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
> In article <1994Sep23.101801@di.epfl.ch>,
> Magnus Kempe <Magnus.Kempe@di.epfl.ch> wrote:
>>Matt Whiting writes:
>>: 
>>: My organization has decided to standardize on C and C++ ...
>>
>>How a company can decide to *standardize* on C++ --a language which is
>>far from being standardized-- is really beyond comprehension.  (I mean
>>"beyond" on a cosmic scale.)
>>
-- 

I used the term "standardize" in the sense that internally my company will use
C and C++ primarily.  Nothing regarding the relative standardization of the
respective languages was implied.

Now ... can anyone offer anything relative to my initial inquiry which was
suggestions on good formats, templates or examples for software RFP/RFQs?

Our newsreader was AWOL for a few days and I've missed several posts, hopefully
nothing relative to my inquiry.  And, sigh, I've received no email either. 
Looks like I get to reinvent another wheel.

--
Matthew S. Whiting, P.E.   | PP-ASEL-IA | All opinions expressed herein are
Corning Incorporated       |            | strictly personal.
whiting_ms@corning.com     |            |