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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-08 16:39:06 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!200.226.6.82!not-for-mail
From: Cesar Scarpini Rabak <csrabak@uol.com.br>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:28:34 -0200
Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fam=EDlia?= Rabak
Message-ID: <3A5A5B32.A6358672@uol.com.br>
References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net>
 <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il>
 <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br>
 <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br>
 <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <umq1yuixba0.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>
 <937kc7$ssq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93c0e9$4u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 200.226.6.82
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 979000436 10298646 200.226.6.82 (16 [39218])
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [pt_BR] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.13 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3786
Date: 2001-01-08T22:28:34-02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

n_brunot@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <937kc7$ssq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 
> > Through the history of Ada we have had people saying
> > "If only we did X, then Ada would be more widely used"
> >
> > But most of these claims have proved experimentally false, and
> > I think this is another such case. If someone produced a much
> > improved c2ada, I doubt this would suddenly make Ada popular.
> 
> I agree.
> Experimentally, one must aknowledge that today Ada is far less popular
> than other languages, even than much younger ones.
> This will not suddenly and magically change without real questions and
> answers about that.
> Most explanations we read can unfortunately be summarized by :
> 
> "Ada is the best, the rest of the world should start to understand it"
> followed by a bunch of technical justifications
> 
> This is the main thing that really experimentally proved to be totally
> counterproductive, even if this is often true.
> Only Ada users really care about those explanations.
> So the result is that Ada users keep convincing one another that they
> made the best choice.
> This is totally useless since they are already convinced.
> The only consequence is that this keep us blind at the fact that we
> haven't the slightest chance to promote Ada with this attitude.
> 
> Anybody who talked about Ada to software people not using Ada (which are
> unfortunately everything but a minority) knows that the usual answer is :
> "Ada ? this still exists ???"
> 

Worse! Research firms like Gartner Group and its peers classify Ada as a
"mature" language "not recommended" for new projects. . . the next stage
is "obsolecent" when they recommend the substitution of the program or
rewrite in another language. It should come in 3 to 5 years!

Cesar