Re: Ada and QNX

[Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <8sg6g2$eur$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> I actually think this error is made in HDTV today, for most
> people resolution is not that important. Speaking as someone
> with high end HDTV equipment, I will say that most people
> don't really care about the difference between DVD (480p)
> and HDTV (720p or 1050i). The wide screen is important, but
> in my view the practice that is appearing of broadcasting
> 16 x 9 material in 1050i is a mistake, it would be better
> to broadcast more channels at 480p.

Obviously you and I differ regarding how well they do at filling
the existing channels and how more channels might affect that,
but continuing that line would be quite off topic.

> Why is this relevant to comp.lang.ada? Well a lot of our
> discussion and support of Ada is based on alledged technical
> superiority, I say alledged because it is not so easy to prove
> superiority in this field. What we need to be sure of is that
> the factors that we stress are indeed those that are important
> and real.

A good point, rarely considered here.  It needs a buzz-word :-)

> I recently saw someone say in an influential list on Ada that
> they thought that the fact that Ada had a better defined
> standard was a crucial element to Ada's success. My own feeling
> is that even if this were true (it is not!) then it would not
> be terribly important, and if we concentrated on that aspect
> to the exclusion of others, we would definitely be making the
> beta mistake, and even if we DID achieve a better defined
> standard, it is not what would impress the real world.

I would say that Ada has a more widely accepted standard than
many of the alternatives.  The absolute number of Pascal compilers
that attempt to implement the full Extended Pascal standard seems
to be about 2.  Certainly the percentage is frightening. I tried
some conversion software to regularly transform Pascal code from
one dialect to another, and it was a burdensome experience.

> What arguments would impress management. Well try this on
> for size "Ada will help you achieve level 3 CMM more rapidly
> and realiably". I suspect this is definitely true, and I could
> (and have) written papers to support this, but I would be
> interested in other people's viewpoints. There's a tecnical
> advantage that definitely WOULD play in some circles.

But in other circles the only possible technical advantage that
could play is "time to market".  I believe for the slight change
of "time to market with a defect rate less than X" could be won
by Ada for suitably small X.  Not all circles will care, but some
will care who do not care about CMM.