Why ADA?

Why ADA?

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!swrinde!mips!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!]

	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.

	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
	can not do in c?

	dave.
	das11@jaguar.ucs.uofs.edu

Re: Why ADA?

[news]

In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
 
> 	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
> 	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
> 	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.

> 	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
> 	can not do in c?
 
Job security (since the same product in Ada will take many times as long
as in C), the undying gratitude of senator Robert Byrd, numerous generals
and other misinformed people in DOD, the gratitude of numerous psychiatrists,
whose services you will require, the gratitude of this nations enemies, since
Ada makes critical American software less reliable and many times longer
in development than it should be...  Need more?

Ted Holden
HTE


-- 
HTE
bear

Re: Why ADA?

[Steve Carr]

In comp.lang.ada, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>
>>       at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
>>       program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
>>       do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.
>
>>       if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>>       can not do in c?
>
>Job security (since the same product in Ada will take many times as long
>as in C), the undying gratitude of senator Robert Byrd, numerous generals
>and other misinformed people in DOD, the gratitude of numerous psychiatrists,
>whose services you will require, the gratitude of this nations enemies, since
>Ada makes critical American software less reliable and many times longer
>in development than it should be...  Need more?
>
>Ted Holden
>HTE
>
>--
>HTE
>bear


Ted,

1.  When you transmit a comment like the above, don't you think
you should give the audience the benefit of figuring out who you
are, and who you represent, or which organization you work for?

2.  "HTE" doesn't tell me anything.

3.  You are of course, entitled to your views and you are
encouraged to express them in this type of forum.  However, full
identity disclosure in a professional forum, I would argue, lends
more weight to one's argument, and causes readers to take the
comments more seriously.  This said, if for no other reason than
the fact that it communicates to others that one has nothing to
hide, or has no special interest group ax to grind, and sincerely
believes in what he/she has transmitted.

Very Respectfully,
Steve Carr
CDR, SC, USN
Naval Air Systems Command (AIR-4114A)
Washington, DC 20361-4110
703-692-5661, 703-692-5690, FAX 703-692-8587
Internet:  air4114a@oasys.dt.navy.mil

Re: Why ADA?

[Jeffrey M. Schweiger]

In article <2697@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
> 
>> 	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
>> 	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
>> 	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.
>
>> 	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>> 	can not do in c?
> 
>Job security (since the same product in Ada will take many times as long
>as in C), the undying gratitude of senator Robert Byrd, numerous generals
>and other misinformed people in DOD, the gratitude of numerous psychiatrists,
>whose services you will require, the gratitude of this nations enemies, since
>Ada makes critical American software less reliable and many times longer
>in development than it should be...  Need more?
>
>Ted Holden
>HTE

Ted - 

You've said many of these things before, and have never publicly backed your
claims of "less reliable" with any verifiable facts.  Care to try now?
You seem to think that those of us who are both users and developers of
mission critical software would intentionally drive up costs and lower 
reliability. I somehow doubt rather strongly that that is the case.

You have also never established that you have programmed anything on the
scale of the projects that Ada is geared for.  Have you?

I think that many of us are quite able to take a somewhat unbiased view,
when given facts to work from.  Ad hominum attacks such as yours, though (and,
to some extent, my response) accomplish little.

And please don't bother to quote Tony Hoare to us again, I think we pretty
much dealt with that one last time.

Jeff Schweiger
-- 
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger	      Standard Disclaimer   	CompuServe:  74236,1645
Internet (Milnet):				schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************

Re: Why ADA?

[paul goffin]

In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

>	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
>	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
>	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.

>	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>	can not do in c?

>	dave.

Well, there's a couple of 'built-ins' in Ada that 'C' dos'n't have, e.g.:

  1) Interrupts
  2) Exceptions.
  3) Multi-tasking.
  4) Ability to control type representations.

But these are just details really.

The real point, and this is something you may meet later in your working
life, is that if you need to get something done that requires MORE THAN
ONE PERSON, you need to make the 'right' way the 'easy' way.

With a good 'C' compiler, a good linker, a very good 'lint' (try
Gimble 'Flexelint' BTW) and GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT, you _can_ achieve
pretty robust 'C'.  But, the first time something is needed 'in a hurry'
the temptation to take the easy way and, say, ignore 'lint' comes in.

With Ada, 'lint' and good scope controls are 'built-in'.  It is
actually _harder_ to get bad Ada to compile than good Ada, so, as
we're all pretty lazy really, we do the eazy thing and write good
Ada.

Yes, one can write good 'C', but under pressure to get it done fast,
most people don't.

Paul.
-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin +  Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.  +44 442 230000x3357 +
+             +  My opinions are my OWN. - no one would pay for this! +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

Re: Why ADA?

[cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!ccs-server.QueensU.CA!qucdn!holnessi]

    I first started programming in C a year and a half ago. I started in
  Ada back in December. My C coding practices have taken me the year and
  a half to build up to a level where I was sure that what I wrote would
  in fact be clean code (in other words, I didn't have to kludge it).

    Sure, C allows you to typecast and force things your way, but that
  can lead to disaster (I still have problems working with it under QNX,
  but that's a different OS matter). Ada is forcing me to be more exact
  with what I write than ever before.

    My advisor for a group project I am involved in has monitored my
  style over the past 3 years, and today finally said :
    "Well, maybe you finally learned something after all this time."

    I've actually been surprised by the fact that what I write actually
  seems to be doing the job. The reason: I am using SunAda and SparcWorks
  Adavision, and the rotter refuses to fully import my own code unless
  it passes all tests for duplicate code, conflicting definitions, etc.

    I consider Ada to be more strongly typed than Pascal, and quite
  frankly a helluva lot harder than C. BUT, on the flip side, it is
  causing an evolution in my programming style and those of my two
  partners, because we are more sensitive to what is proper and correct.

    Sorry for the lengthy bit, but I think that you should at least check
  out the language a bit before deciding that it's a lost cause.

    Iain D. Holness

    Soon to be graduate Computer Engineering Technologist,
               St. Lawrence College Saint-Laurent, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Re: Why ADA?

[eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!kth.se!admin.kth.se!nobeltech.nobeltech.se!lee]

In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>	why should i program in ada when there is c?  what does ada
>	offer me?

You propably shouldn't write in Ada, as it has almost nothing to offer
you.  The benefit is exclusively ours: we may be able to read what you
have written, if you've done it in Ada.  And so may your project-partners.

>	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>	can not do in c?

Ada is not an OOD-language; I'm positive that C++ is better for that
field of programming.  Ada is at its best in large projects, and you
don't see many of those as hand-in exercises in the universities.  But
entering a univeristy, you should be prepared to study for life, not
just for the exam.
 __  __   
|  \   |  All opinions are my own, even if my employer claims otherwise!
|   \  |  
|      |	Leif Euren			NobelTech Systems AB
|  \   |	System Manager Rational  	S-175 88 JARFALLA
|__ \__|	tel: +46-758-84072		Sweden
-- 
 __  __   
|  \   |  All opinions are my own, even if my employer claims otherwise!
|   \  |  
|      |	Leif Euren			NobelTech Systems AB

Re: Why ADA?

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!enuxha.ea]

In article <92084.001321HOLNESSI@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> HOLNESSI@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (I
ain D. Holness) writes:
>  BUT, on the flip side, it is
>  causing an evolution in my programming style and those of my two
>  partners, because we are more sensitive to what is proper and correct.

Many people have said that the gains we will see in our migration to
Ada will not come from the language itself.  Rather they will come from
the exposure to basic SE principles that will take place when learning
the Ada language, even if not from formal instruction.  It is interesting
to see an example of this.  I'd bet your C programs would look quite a
bit different now compared to C programs you had written before this
understanding.
--
Harry Koehnemann
koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu

Re: Why ADA?

[rochester!kodak!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!vitro.com!v7.vitro.com!eswgcc]

In article <13235@suns3.crosfield.co.uk>, pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) wri
tes:
> In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
> 
>>	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
>>	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
>>	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.
> 
>>	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>>	can not do in c?
> 
>>	dave.
> 
> 
> The real point, and this is something you may meet later in your working
> life, is that if you need to get something done that requires MORE THAN
> ONE PERSON, you need to make the 'right' way the 'easy' way.
> 
> With a good 'C' compiler, a good linker, a very good 'lint' (try
> Gimble 'Flexelint' BTW) and GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT, you _can_ achieve
> pretty robust 'C'.  But, the first time something is needed 'in a hurry'
> the temptation to take the easy way and, say, ignore 'lint' comes in.
> 
> With Ada, 'lint' and good scope controls are 'built-in'.  It is
> actually _harder_ to get bad Ada to compile than good Ada, so, as
> we're all pretty lazy really, we do the eazy thing and write good
> Ada.
> 
> Yes, one can write good 'C', but under pressure to get it done fast,
> most people don't.
> 
> Paul.

This was a very nice exposition of a sentiment I wanted to convey and couldn't
think of how to put.   Just to extend this a little, I would say that Ada 
forces you to use these concepts; C just lets you.   The difference the first 
time you use Ada in a group is amazing; we spent 1 week doing joint design, 
three weeks separately doing development, and then were integrated and running 
in about an hour.   This with good software engineers who were doing their 
first Ada project.

The big payback for Ada is for team development.   That's not what you learn in
 
school, but it is what you'll need in the real world.

-- 
         ______________________________________________________________________
        /  Carmen Castells-Schofield             Internet: carmencs@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	                 Voice:    (301) 231-2187
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.              ....................................
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972    : May the light within us all    
    *                                      : answer each the other's call
                                           :...................................
*******************************************************************************
*   Any opinions expressed herein are my own property, not those of whoever   *
*            happens to be holding my paycheck at the moment.                 *
*******************************************************************************

Re: Why ADA?

[elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!mahendo!larissa!felipe]

In article <1992Mar24.161425.125@v7.vitro.com>, carmencs@vitro.com (Carmen Cast
ells-Schofield) writes:
|> In article <13235@suns3.crosfield.co.uk>, pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) 
writes:
|> > In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writ
es:
|> > 
|> >>	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
|> >>	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
|> >>	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.
|> > 
|> >>	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
|> >>	can not do in c?
|> > 
|> >>	dave.
|> > 
|> > 
|> > The real point, and this is something you may meet later in your working
|> > life, is that if you need to get something done that requires MORE THAN
|> > ONE PERSON, you need to make the 'right' way the 'easy' way.
|> > 
|> > With a good 'C' compiler, a good linker, a very good 'lint' (try
|> > Gimble 'Flexelint' BTW) and GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT, you _can_ achieve
|> > pretty robust 'C'.  But, the first time something is needed 'in a hurry'
|> > the temptation to take the easy way and, say, ignore 'lint' comes in.
|> > 
|> > With Ada, 'lint' and good scope controls are 'built-in'.  It is
|> > actually _harder_ to get bad Ada to compile than good Ada, so, as
|> > we're all pretty lazy really, we do the eazy thing and write good
|> > Ada.
|> > 
|> > Yes, one can write good 'C', but under pressure to get it done fast,
|> > most people don't.
|> > 
|> > Paul.
|> 
|> This was a very nice exposition of a sentiment I wanted to convey and couldn
't
|> think of how to put.   Just to extend this a little, I would say that Ada 
|> forces you to use these concepts; C just lets you.   The difference the firs
t 
|> time you use Ada in a group is amazing; we spent 1 week doing joint design, 
|> three weeks separately doing development, and then were integrated and runni
ng 
|> in about an hour.   This with good software engineers who were doing their 
|> first Ada project.
|> 
|> The big payback for Ada is for team development.   That's not what you learn
 in 
|> school, but it is what you'll need in the real world.
|> 
|> -- 

By learning Ada in school doesn't prepare someone for the 'real world.'
You don't need and shouldn't have to use Ada to learn good software 
development. If you have a good software engineering background the
so call benefits of Ada doesn't show.
   
I have used Ada and C is the past and I can see why Ada will never be as
popular as C or ever come close. The increasing popularity of C++ will
only make C/C++ even more popular.

With all the defense cuts (the driving engine of Ada) will cause the 
language (Ada) to shift to a lower gear and maybe it will even stall...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Hervias                             ****  *******    ****
Jet Propulsion Laboratory                  ****  ****  ***  ****
M/S T-1704                                 ****  ****  ***  ****
4800 Oak Grove Drive                  ***  ****  *******    ****
Pasadena, CA 91109                    ***  ****  ****       ********
email : felipe@triton.jpl.nasa.gov      ******   ****       ********
voice : (818) 354-0582                >>> Where the future begins <<<
fax   : (818) 393-4089
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Why ADA?

[Brian Hanafee]

In article <1992Mar25.163726.10669@mahendo.jpl.nasa.gov> felipe@larissa.jpl.nas
a.gov (Felipe Hervias) writes:
>In article <1992Mar24.161425.125@v7.vitro.com>, carmencs@vitro.com (Carmen Cas
tells-Schofield) writes:
> > In article <13235@suns3.crosfield.co.uk>, pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin)
 writes:
> > > Yes, one can write good 'C', but under pressure to get it done fast,
> > > most people don't.
> > 
> > [stuff deleted] Just to extend this a little, I would say that Ada 
> > forces you to use these concepts; C just lets you.
> > [example deleted]
>
>By learning Ada in school doesn't prepare someone for the 'real world.'
>You don't need and shouldn't have to use Ada to learn good software 
>development. If you have a good software engineering background the
>so call benefits of Ada doesn't show.

The benefits of Ada show every time Ada forces the developer to do a
complete design before coding.  One big problem in industry is that
developers of code tend not to be the maintainers, both because of job
descriptions and job turnover.  Thus, a developer is most often able
to get away with quicker, dirtier solutions which are to the detriment
of the long-term cost of the program.  Schools simply are not set up
to demonstrate to students the benefits of long term maintainability--
maintainability that must span *many* years of development.  The "good
software engineering background" is only so many words if the software
engineer has never seen evidence of the benefits of complete design,
and he won't until he gets to his first big program.

>
>I have used Ada and C is the past and I can see why Ada will never be as
>popular as C or ever come close. The increasing popularity of C++ will
>only make C/C++ even more popular.

Need I point out the circularity in this argument?

--
Brian Hanafee                         Advanced Decision Systems
bhanafee@ads.com                      1500 Plymouth Street
(415) 960-7300                        Mountain View, CA 94043-1230

Re: Why ADA?

[mcsun!ieunet!ccvax.ucd.ie!vms.eurokom.ie!adimaio]

In article <2697@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes
:
>  
>> 	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
>> 	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
>> 	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.
> 
>> 	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>> 	can not do in c?
>  
> Job security (since the same product in Ada will take many times as long
> as in C), the undying gratitude of senator Robert Byrd, numerous generals
> and other misinformed people in DOD, the gratitude of numerous psychiatrists,
> whose services you will require, the gratitude of this nations enemies, since
> Ada makes critical American software less reliable and many times longer
> in development than it should be...  Need more?
> 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
> 
> 
> -- 
> HTE
> bear
Let's wait for C++ results on large projects. They are likely to come back
asking for Ada ...
Andrea Di Maio
TXT Ingegneria Informatica - Milan (Italy) (we develop in C, Ada, C++, ASM ...)

Re: Why ADA?

[Bob Bagwill]

In article <BHANAFEE.92Mar25104850@deimos.ads.com> bhanafee@deimos.ads.com (Bri
an Hanafee) writes:
>Schools simply are not set up
>to demonstrate to students the benefits of long term maintainability--
>maintainability that must span *many* years of development.  The "good
>software engineering background" is only so many words if the software
>engineer has never seen evidence of the benefits of complete design,
>and he won't until he gets to his first big program.

Most universities have large pet software projects.  When they teach
software design and maintenance, working on one of those huge, slowly
evolving projects should be part of the course.  That gives students
practical experience in reading other peoples' code, and an object
lesson in why documentation and design are so important, as well as
slave labor to improve the project :-)
-- 
Bob Bagwill	NIST/Computer Systems Lab/Software Engineering Group

Re: Why ADA?

[AM Barry]

In article <1992Mar24.160042.28619@nobeltech.se> leeu@nobeltech.se (Leif Euren)
 writes:
>In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>>	why should i program in ada when there is c?  what does ada
>>	offer me?
>
>You propably shouldn't write in Ada, as it has almost nothing to offer
>you.  The benefit is exclusively ours: we may be able to read what you
>have written, if you've done it in Ada.  And so may your project-partners.
>
>>	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>>	can not do in c?
>
>Ada is not an OOD-language; I'm positive that C++ is better for that
>field of programming.  Ada is at its best in large projects, and you
>don't see many of those as hand-in exercises in the universities.  But
>entering a univeristy, you should be prepared to study for life, not
>just for the exam.

In Bristol Poly we have been teaching Ada for many years. I was unsurprised
when, once initial prejudice was removed and students got used to the idea that
they had to actually 'say what they mean' in the language to find that the
majority of the students had a preference for Ada over C, C++, or Pascal. The
reason ? .... In large projects you can get a program up and running without
bugs quicker than C, it is more flexible and useful for teamwork than Pascal,
and it doesn't do unexpected things with memory (unlike C++). From a teaching
perspective, I can testify that Ada is a _lot_ easier to teach than either C or
Pascal even though it is a bigger language purely because there are so few
inconsistancies and the compiler is able to report intelligently on errors. Of
course, it is not my favourite language (too verbose), but when I actually want
to get something signifigant done, it has to be Ada.

By the way, concerning OO and Ada ... the 9X proposals for tagged types look
nice desite the lack of multiple inheritance, and are well fitted into the
current language features (derived types & the 'standard' way of representing
classes in Ada-83) ... which is more than can be said about the proposals
regarding Protected Records !!!!

Alwyn Barry, Senior Lecturer, Bristol Polytechnic.

Re: Why ADA?

[rochester!kodak!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!vitro.com!v7.vitro.com!eswgcc]

In article <1992Mar25.163726.10669@mahendo.jpl.nasa.gov>, felipe@larissa.jpl.na
sa.gov (Felipe Hervias) writes:
> In article <1992Mar24.161425.125@v7.vitro.com>, carmencs@vitro.com (Carmen Ca
stells-Schofield) writes:
> |> In article <13235@suns3.crosfield.co.uk>, pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin
) writes:
> |> > In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu wr
ites:
> |> > 
> |> >>	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
> |> >>	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
> |> >>	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.
> |> > 
> |> >>	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
> |> >>	can not do in c?
> |> > 
> |> >>	dave.
> |> > 
> |> > 
> |> > The real point, and this is something you may meet later in your working
> |> > life, is that if you need to get something done that requires MORE THAN
> |> > ONE PERSON, you need to make the 'right' way the 'easy' way.
> |> > 
> |> > With a good 'C' compiler, a good linker, a very good 'lint' (try
> |> > Gimble 'Flexelint' BTW) and GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT, you _can_ achieve
> |> > pretty robust 'C'.  But, the first time something is needed 'in a hurry'
> |> > the temptation to take the easy way and, say, ignore 'lint' comes in.
> |> > 
> |> > With Ada, 'lint' and good scope controls are 'built-in'.  It is
> |> > actually _harder_ to get bad Ada to compile than good Ada, so, as
> |> > we're all pretty lazy really, we do the eazy thing and write good
> |> > Ada.
> |> > 
> |> > Yes, one can write good 'C', but under pressure to get it done fast,
> |> > most people don't.
> |> > 
> |> > Paul.
> |> 
> |> This was a very nice exposition of a sentiment I wanted to convey and coul
dn't
> |> think of how to put.   Just to extend this a little, I would say that Ada 
> |> forces you to use these concepts; C just lets you.   The difference the fi
rst 
> |> time you use Ada in a group is amazing; we spent 1 week doing joint design
, 
> |> three weeks separately doing development, and then were integrated and run
ning 
> |> in about an hour.   This with good software engineers who were doing their
 
> |> first Ada project.
> |> 
> |> The big payback for Ada is for team development.   That's not what you lea
rn in 
> |> school, but it is what you'll need in the real world.
> |> 
> |> -- 
> 
> By learning Ada in school doesn't prepare someone for the 'real world.'
> You don't need and shouldn't have to use Ada to learn good software 
> development. If you have a good software engineering background the
> so call benefits of Ada doesn't show.
>    

	This is true if and only if you always use good software engineering
techniques, no matter the time pressure, and so does everyone you ever work 
with and/or have to support old code from.   Historically, however, this has 
not proven true.   Therefore, a language like Ada which makes it easy to do 
good design and harder to kludge stuff, and which forces you to think things 
through up front, has a place in the software engineering community.   You can 
write good, structured assembler, too, but very little existing assembler is...

> I have used Ada and C is the past and I can see why Ada will never be as
> popular as C or ever come close. The increasing popularity of C++ will
> only make C/C++ even more popular.

	I agree that the average hacker would probably rather write C/C++.   I 
maintain, however, that the average software engineer would rather MAINTAIN 
Ada.
         ______________________________________________________________________
        /  Carmen Castells-Schofield             Internet: carmencs@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	                 Voice:    (301) 231-2187
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.              ....................................
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972    : May the light within us all    
    *                                      : answer each the other's call
                                           :...................................
*******************************************************************************
*   Any opinions expressed herein are my own property, not those of whoever   *
*            happens to be holding my paycheck at the moment.                 *
*******************************************************************************

Re: Why ADA?

[Xmiester]

>
> By the end of the millenia,
>there will probably be a new language that will be all the rage. 
>

<<< insert jeopardy buzzer sound here >>>

What is DRAGOON !

miester

-- 

WHY ADA?

[Casadio Tozzi Pier Paolo]

Dear Ada's Friends,
I am a DBASE programmer and i do not Know ADA language.
Do you want inform me what it is possible to make today with Ada?
I knew that many years ago it can make some very good input/output
functions to link in other applications  for the remote control but I do
not know  more about Ada.
Thank in advance.
Paolo