Re: "Forced to Use Ada"

[karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer)]

In article <7682@venera.isi.edu>, raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes:
> 	Standardization is precisely the greatest danger of ADA,
> 	particularly because the DOD standard doesn't even permit
> 	extensions.  If we accept the ADA standard we lose the
> 	option to improve as we learn better ways to approach
> 	software engineering.

True enough, and the same can be said for all standards.  They inhibit
innovation to some degree, but provide the well-understood benefits 
of interoperability and a large user base.

> 	Suppose somone designed a language provably better than these --
> 	if we mandate an existing standard, such as ADA or C, we risk
> 	preserving a dinosaur at the expense of suffocating mammals.
> 	That's my usual comment about UNIX, but it also suits languages.

Let me know when you've got a portable (hence, potentially standard) 
operating system that's arguably better than Unix working.  I'd like 
to have a look at it.  

Until then, you're simply complaining about something that's become a
standard by virtue of its being the only one around that can do it, 
without offering a viable alternative.
-- 
-- uunet!ficc!karl	"An expression of deep worry and concern failed to
-- karl@ficc.uu.net	 cross either of Zaphod's faces."  -- Hitchiker's Guide