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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,87f6968ed41c9df1 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Multiple reasons for failure of Ariane 5 (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?) Date: 1996/08/27 Message-ID: <3222E997.5EEC@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 176801016 references: <4ta0iu$kks@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <4u538f$9q6@hacgate2.hac.com> <4u6723$kp2@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <4uibvh$1p76@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4vgkt1$s2v@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <4vjea6$gj7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <32217BC4.3583@lmtas.lmco.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-08-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Dave Jones wrote: > > Ken, > > On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Ken Garlington wrote: > > > > > How's that list of real-time flight systems written in PL/I progressing? > > > > It's not a flight system, of course (unless you count the times I've > loaded up my P/390 box on an airliner and used it for work...:-)), but > my company has been quite successful in using PL/I to develop and > market a line of VM/ESA performance monitor analysis and reporting tools. [snip] > > Does, this mean that PL/I is "better than" Ada, or C, or Fortran, or > ....? No, of course not, it just means that when used in an appropreate > manner in an environment it was designed for, it's a very good choice > for a serious development language. No argument there. I've used PL/I very successfully myself (although, oddly enough, I never used PL/I while working at IBM!). However, real-time systems such as you describe are very different than real-time embedded flight systems. It is completely absurd to claim that someone, knowing PL/I (or any language, for that matter) somehow is an expert in the real-time embedded flight system environment. It is even more absurb to make such claims if the language isn't routinely used in that environment. Of course, given the other bizarre statements by ++robin (Ada is bad because it doesn't have exception mechanisms, Ada is bad because someone once asked how to do a square root operation, etc. etc.) I have to believe it's all a put-on on his part. Anything for a laugh, eh? -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"