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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7961088baf0e34d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Alan Brain Subject: Re: AIA Position on Ada Date: 1996/08/29 Message-ID: <32266B97.3C8F@dynamite.com.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177101561 references: <321DA0F3.34BC@lmtas.lmco.com> <321f0f6d.0@red.interact.net.au> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: @Home mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: aebrain@dynamite.com.au newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) Date: 1996-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: bohn@rational.com wrote: > > > >However, we believe that the doomsayers are wrong. Ada is too good a > > >language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it die. > > > > Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable > > and costly VHS obsolete. ---->8------ > Also, it's pretty stupid to compare recorders to a programming language. Wouldn't be the first time I've done something Thick, won't be the last. But disagree: a reasonable analogy, showing that superior marketing, or even just availability of more titles sooner, has, in the past, beaten a superior technical solution. The situation vis-a-vis Ada should be obvious to any Rational person. ---------------------- <> <> How doth the little Crocodile | Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail? | Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM By pulling ---------------------- o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo Maerklin Wagons In 1/220 Scale