From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a2fcc2648d0bc573
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@EMAIL.ENST.FR>
Subject: Re: Ada for Boeing 777
Date: 1996/02/21
Message-ID: <199602211506.QAA18425@email.enst.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 140474426
sender: Ada programming language <INFO-ADA@VM1.NODAK.EDU>
x-sender: rosen@email.enst.fr
comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Date: 1996-02-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

At 16:33 19/02/1996 GMT, you wrote:
>[...]
>  "What we have learned so far about the use of Ada on the 777 is a mixed
>   message. ... We found no correlation between the languages used and
>   the number of problems found on the system.  We found instances where
>   Ada was used effectively, and the developers felt it substantially
>   reduced software integration problems.  In other cases, development
>   was hampered by problems with compilers and other support tools....

If you read  carefully this message, it actually matches a lot of experience
from other people: benefits are attributed to the  *language*, while
drawbacks are attributed to *tools*. Often, as here, the distinction is not
made, but it is important: it is MUCH easier to fix a compiler bug than a
language flaw !!!
+------------------------------------o-------------------------------------+
| P-mail:                            | E-mail: rosen@enst.fr               |
|   ADALOG - 27 avenue de Verdun     |    Tel: +33 1 46 45 51 12           |
|   92170 Vanves - FRANCE            |    Fax: +33 1 46 45 52 49           |
+------------------------------------o-------------------------------------+