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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d274f280c8c4a8b8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-24 09:51:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!beamish.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsfeed0.news.atl.earthlink.net!news.atl.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Mainstream Ada Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:57:02 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3C79296E.3F2E6DDC@adaworks.com> References: <3C77CF8C.93F1837@adaworks.com> <3C78943B.9030600@mail.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cc.95 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 24 Feb 2002 17:50:23 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20334 Date: 2002-02-24T17:50:23+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote: > Richard Riehle wrote: > > At present, functional requirements overshadow non-functional > > requirements in the world of commercial software. That is, > > features are easier to sell than quality. > > You know we usually fight over Ada vs. C++ issues, but I think > I'm going to take Ada's side here. I don't like Ada all that > much, but it's mostly for stylistic reasons. I believe, however, > that an Ada programmer can pound out features just as well, and > just as quickly, as a Java or C++ programmer. Are you really > suggesting that commercial software developers who choose Ada > will have to forego adding features to their software? That's > not going to do much for Ada advocacy! Clever response, Dr. Rosen, but its intent is rather transparent. We both know it is a wrong interpretation of my message, and intended only as a provocation, not as a serious comment. Richard Riehle