Re: Desirability of C++

["Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei@online.no>]

Richard D Riehle wrote:
> On top of that, the interpretation, by many, of former Assitant
> Secretary of Defense Paige's memo, is that Ada is no longer a DoD
> language.  It is a stupid interpretation and completely wrongheaded,
> but people will read what they want into it.  Notice the plethora
> of articles at the time of the publication of that memo that declared
> that Ada was "dead."  How can we blame military officers for mistakenly
> thinking it is dead when they read that it is in popular magazines
> such as Dr. Dobbs and Government Computing News.


There seem to be nobody who want to write articles featuring Ada in
either Dr. Dobbs and Government Computing News. Until someone does, it
is going to look bad for Ada even though the companies involved may be
making more money.

The least the Ada industry association (or whatever it is called) could
do if the market is in fact growing, is to put out an occational press
release which shows that the market are growing. If I were a shareholder
in any of the companies that would be the least I would expect. 

The ada industry looks very much like where I work (just a slight
twist). When there are good times, nobody have the time to do anything
about cost reduction. When the times are bad, they refuse to invest in
cost reduction. However they will spend a lot of time telling everybody
that they cannot afford to use any money. Some time they will spend more
time arguing and telling how poor they are than it would take for the
developers to implement the feature.


Greetings,