From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 6 Sep 93 01:22:05 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!venice!gumby.dsd.trw.com!truffula.fp.trw
.com!trwacs!erwin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Harry Erwin)
Subject: Re: ARPA,Air Force,Navy publicly brag about a great C++ code
Message-ID: <26e3bt$9b2@truffula.fp.trw.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The problem with Ada is that it doesn't do what it was designed to do well
enough to overcome its short-term economic disadvantages. Ada is a niche
language (high reliability applications, embedded applications, and
maintainable applications), and it has to do those -->very<-- well to
survive. The successor to Ada should not be Ada++. Rather, it should be a
language optimized for its niche. Based on watching a number of
interesting programs, I question whether Ada is good enough at what it is
supposed to do to survive. That's a shame, since my life sometimes depends
on software doing its function very reliably.

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Working on Freeman nets....