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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 103376,2702c1ed8be62863
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Roga Danar <smithm_nospam@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>
Subject: Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*
Date: 1998/12/09
Message-ID: <366EAD78.B2EB8B20@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 420463602
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <to.reply-0312980902120001@129.197.97.40>
 <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch> <to.reply-0712980827110001@129.197.97.40>
 <366D68CD.AFC12CAF@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com> <74jnee$b9e$1@remarQ.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.exit109.com 913219239 29905 208.225.73.22 (9 Dec 1998 16:00:39
 GMT)
Organization: AlphaSoft, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: job_unspam@no.love.for.spam.alphasoft-inc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Dec 1998 16:00:39 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-12-09T16:00:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Pat Rogers wrote:

> Roga Danar wrote in message
> <366D68CD.AFC12CAF@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>...
> >Rick Thorne wrote:
> >
> >>  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
> >> commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a
> standard
> >> the government has tried to bully on us.
> >
> >    I could not agree more.  This is the best point you have made.
> A language
> >choice should be made on real-world constraints.  How much will I
> have to pay the
> >programmers?  How many tools are there for a given platform or
> implementation?  Is
> >the language by it's definition "safe" to use in critical systems?
>
> While I certainly agree that a reasoned choice should be made, based
> upon facts and not fad, I cannot agree that the government tried to
> "bully" their contractors.  The policy was "use Ada or make a good
> argument for why not (i.e., make the case for a waiver)".  That is
> certainly a reasonable approach for a customer to take -- their
> providers were using over 450 different languages and dialects.  A
> similar situation would be if a given building were wired for 450
> different power levels; a phone system using 450 different
> protocols; and on and on.  Trying to get things under control was a
> good idea.  That doesn't mean Ada was/is perfect, or that other
> languages could not be justified, but this idea of Big Brother
> trying to "bully" their contractors is just silliness.

I should have been more clear.  I have work much of my career under contracts
for DoD and have never felt any trying to bully me or the project.  In fact, if
anything
there was pressure to go to C++ a couple of years ago on a navy project I was
on.

Sorry for the confusion.