Re: The actual quote from the Post AAS article

[berman@umbc.edu (Mike Berman)]

(Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <1no3fbINN3h7@umbc4.umbc.edu> berman@umbc.edu (Mike Berman) writes:
>
>  > Any attempt to assert, based on the information in this article, that Ada
>  > is the sole reason for failure, or even a major contributing factor, is
>  > absurd. This project would have failed using any implementation
>  > language.
>
>    This assumes that the project should be counted as a failure.

Oops. My mistake. Replace all occurrences of the word 'failure'
above with 'its failings'. Apologies to all those who have put hard work
into AAS!

I'm too used to seeing the following aberrated logic:

	Project X failed, was delayed, went way over cost, etc.
	Project X used Ada.
	=> Project Y should not use Ada or it will fail.

This is generally done via statistics taken completely out of context
which, at best, are anecdotal anyway. BTW, Ada benefactors use such
statistics as freely as do its detractors.

I always want to know the story behind the story. What kind of software
process is in place? What training did the software engineers and
managers receive? From the points raised in the article, it appears that
these and several critical factors were lacking.

To date, I have not seen clear evidence that any project has failed
solely because of the use of Ada. Most failure and setbacks that we hear
about concerning Ada efforts are also large, ambitious, highly political
situations. When all project factors are taken into account, the answer
to the question "would this project be in the same (or similar)
situation had we used [place language here]?" is "yes".

I know, I know ... preaching to the choir!

>					Robert I. Eachus

-- 
Mike Berman
University of Maryland, Baltimore County	Fastrak Training, Inc.
berman@umbc.edu					(301)924-0050