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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f05f6c2ca4c91ddd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: long term viability of Ada Date: 1996/09/20 Message-ID: <1996Sep20.072744.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 184139614 x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org references: <324219D1.15FFEF33@bright.net> x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN x-trace: 843218867/18268 organization: LJK Software newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <324219D1.15FFEF33@bright.net>, Greg A Barnett writes: > have one argument I can't refute and I'm looking for help. They claim > that since the DoD is abandoning Ada (their words, not mine) and since > there is very little commercial use of Ada in the US (again their > words), Ada is a dead language that won't be around in 5-10 years. Does Organizations which must maintain old code are more likely to stay in business if that code is of a fashion that promotes maintainability. It is true that sovereign nations can withstand much greater economic trauma than commercial organizations, so those organizations which subsist on government contracts may be able to get away with inefficiencies better than the rest of us..