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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:2196 comp.software-eng:1268 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!karl From: karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: "Forced to Use Ada" Summary: standards, their cost and value Message-ID: <3447@ficc.uu.net> Date: 16 Mar 89 14:06:03 GMT References: <6125@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <4624@hubcap.UUCP> <7682@venera.isi.edu> Organization: Ferranti International Controls List-Id: 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