* Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth
@ 1993-02-26 3:42 news
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: news @ 1993-02-26 3:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <SRCTRAN.93Feb24103445@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregor
y Aharonian) writes:
> while none of the future standard bearers (such as Microsoft, Borland,
> Computer Associates, Novell, or Lotus) ignore Ada and aren't involved
> with DoD software engineering research activities? Seems a strange way
> to keep compatible with the world.
Microsoft and Borland ARE compatible with the world. It's DOD (actually the
small/unfortunate sections of DOD which do not manage to find waivers) which
are incompatible.
--
Ted Holden
HTE
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth
@ 1993-02-24 15:34 Gregory Aharonian
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Aharonian @ 1993-02-24 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
>> Ada will forever be dead in the non-mandated world as long as IBM is
>>silent about Ada. Dead, dead, dead, no matter how many people pretend that
>>Ada has some rosy future.
>I rather doubt it. Back when IBM was a five hundred pound gorilla, it
>promoted a language called PL/I. Turns out there are some things even
>a gorilla can't do.
>Besides, IBM won't be silent for much longer. IBM won't be anything for
>much longer.
IBM is like Cobol and Fortran - it will be around, in some form. Besides
the replacement for IBM, Microsoft has even less interest in Ada than IBM
(if there is something less than nothing). The IS world, which makes up
the bulk of the non-mandated world, as it shifts over to the desktop,
distributed computing era, will see its new standard bearer, Microsoft,
showing no interest in Ada. There will never be enough critical mass for
Ada in the non-mandated world to meet the implicit (and never stated)
assumptions behind current DoD software cost projections (such as tools and
programmer supply).
Doesn't anyone ever wonder (certainly not in the STARS program) why the
current software standard bearers in the non-mandated world ignore Ada
(a few of whom receive STARS funding - has anyone at any of the STARS
shindigs ever pestered the IBM representatives on why IBM ignores Ada?),
while none of the future standard bearers (such as Microsoft, Borland,
Computer Associates, Novell, or Lotus) ignore Ada and aren't involved
with DoD software engineering research activities? Seems a strange way
to keep compatible with the world.
There is currently a major price war between Microsoft and Borland
over the latest versions of their C++ compiler environments - development
systems for $150 with compilers, debuggers, browsers, code generators,
GUI libraries, while Ada systems go for five times as much and more, while
offering less.
People may smirk that C++ is borrowing a lot from Ada and is nothing
more than a copycat. Well, how about Ada borrowing C++'s marketing
successes.
Greg Aharonian
--
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth
@ 1993-02-23 12:52 cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!firth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!firth @ 1993-02-23 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <SRCTRAN.93Feb22192350@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
Aharonian) writes:
> Ada will forever be dead in the non-mandated world as long as IBM is
>silent about Ada. Dead, dead, dead, no matter how many people pretend that
>Ada has some rosy future.
I rather doubt it. Back when IBM was a five hundred pound gorilla, it
promoted a language called PL/I. Turns out there are some things even
a gorilla can't do.
Besides, IBM won't be silent for much longer. IBM won't be anything for
much longer.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth
@ 1993-02-23 0:23 Gregory Aharonian
[not found] ` <C2z4BB.FJ0@shellgate.shell.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Aharonian @ 1993-02-23 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
For some time, I have been arguing that IBM's refusal to promote Ada in
the commercial MIS world is effectively killing a chance that Ada will be
broadly accepted, and the partial hypocrisy that results with IBM's being
a part of the STARS program (i.e. kick them out and make them return the
money).
A recent article in an IBM specific magazine backs up my contention.
The magazine (and there are magazines outside the non-Mandated world) is
titled "Enterprise Systems Journal", a magazine for IBM and compatible
mainframe, minis and workstations. Typical articles discuss abends, DB,
MVS, RS/6000, etc.
In the February 1993 issue, page 45, there is an article titled
"Why IS Rejects Object-Oriented Programming", and discusses the slow
acceptance of OOP by IS managers. Where IS does adopt OOP, it tends to be
either C++ or Smalltalk. And once again, Ada is no where mentioned.
Anyways, at one point, the author, an industry analyst, writes:
"Many new OOP development environments are evolving to"
address more traditional IS concerns. Smalltalk, for
example, is moving rapidly toward better integration
with IS software since IBM adopted the language for
AD/CYCLE and established communications with the small
software firms behind its development.
----
Corporate IBM has never said squat about Ada anywhere, has never
included Ada in any of its news software engineering methodologies, and
has little to do with small software firms behind Ada.
Ada will forever be dead in the non-mandated world as long as IBM is
silent about Ada. Dead, dead, dead, no matter how many people pretend that
Ada has some rosy future. And while I wholeheartedly support IBM's right
to whatever it feels is profitable (like ignoring Ada for Smalltalk and C++),
they have no right to receive STARS funding for telling a story completely
contradictory to their commercial activities. There are enough companies
willing to tell both their defense and non-defense customers the same story
about Ada who belong in STARS.
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
--
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1993-03-04 13:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1993-02-26 3:42 Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth news
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-02-24 15:34 Gregory Aharonian
1993-02-23 12:52 cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!firth
1993-02-23 0:23 Gregory Aharonian
[not found] ` <C2z4BB.FJ0@shellgate.shell.com>
1993-03-04 3:24 ` news
1993-03-04 13:22 ` Scott McCoy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox