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: 103376,33e793a459e66944
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: whiting_ms@corning.com (whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting))
Subject: Re: Choosing C++ instead of Ada (was What is Ada used for?)
Date: 1996/10/22
Message-ID: <1996Oct22.082850.1@corning.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 191240402
references: <AE813FAA-56A9E@206.107.67.23> <dewar.845905352@merv>
organization: Corning, Incorporated
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
nntp-posting-user: whiting_ms
Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.845905352@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 
> I can give a VERY convincing presentation here from a corporate point
> of view of why Ada 95 definitely will be around for the long term, and
> will continue to improve rapidly. I gave such a presentation for the
> Lockheed Martin folks wrt the Aegis program. This is quite an ACT
> specific presentation, so nt really suitable for general publication.
> 

Any chance of getting the essence of the argument in a "de-ACTed" and
"de-militarized" form?

I downloaded and took a look at the ce960222.ppt presentation discussed here
recently, and it is one of the better presentations I've yet encountered.
However, it really was quite military oriented and probably wouldn't impress
most corporate execs in non-defense companies.

Matt