Re: Another One Bites the Dust!

[dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)]

In article <9410281126.AA08984@eurocontrol.de>,
Bob Wells #402  <wel@EUROCONTROL.DE> wrote:
>I've just heard that the Swedish military is not going to proceed
>with an Ada version of the tactical terminal that they had ordered.
>
>[snip]
>The schedule was such that the delivery of the prototype, upgraded
>to the new Swedish spec. but also using SDL and C, was due for
>evaluation in August this year. It turns out that the prototype
>worked so well that the Swedes have said not to bother with the Ada
>version, they are happy with the performance of the SDL/C version!

I, for one, am glad they didn't convert it into Ada.  The issue
appears (to me) to be cost.  And this appears to be a genuine case of
where it would be more costly to use Ada.  Remember, not _every_
situation calls for Ada, even when it might appear so.  

(No, I haven't turned into a "Pod Person" like from "Invasion of the
Body Snatchers" :-)


-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
   	      Ada -- Very Cool.  Doesn't Suck.               ||  father's Ada 
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command:   ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
   ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-)