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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/22 Message-ID: <326CB729.2E0D@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191299998 references: <54es3s$2dv@lex.zippo.com> <326B6DFD.732B@ainslie.com.au> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > > If you were the last company on Earth using Ada, then you would not have > a competetive advantage -- you would be stuck shovelling money into the > last Ada compiler on Earth. And it would be buggy and inefficient, and > the latest and greatest configuration management tools wouldn't work > with it. Oh, I dunno. I was on a project where we were competing with other companies for a Government contract. For the particular host/target we were using, we ended up being the only company shoveling money (and a lot of it) into an Ada compiler for that host/target. Yet, we won the contract, more than making up the extra expense of the money we spent. I can't say Ada was a reason we won, or the only reason we won, but we did win. I would certainly prefer to have Ada be widely accepted. However, I can understand someone using a proprietary process to gain an advantage -- even if that process is known to the world. > - Bob -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality" For more info, see http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com