Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

A manager's reasons for selecting a language are not necessarily 
"supreme" - other than in the sense that ultimately, they have to make 
the decision and be responsible for the net effect so their reasons 
trump those of the technocrat. Also, often, the manager is operating on 
the recommendations of his staff - who are technical - and they have 
reasons to want to use something other than Ada as well. The manager's 
reasons are also not "unknowable". Usually, all you have to do is ask. 
When I try to persuade those above me or my customers that Ada is 
technically superior and they should choose it, I take time to listen 
when they say "Yes, but....."

As it turns out, the reasons they have are - as you observe - not 
"technical" in nature. They are usually more practical business 
concerns. (And lest we all forget, business concerns are important 
because without paying attention to them, we're all out of jobs.) Try 
some of these:

"People I interview for jobs don't know Ada and don't want to know Ada - 
they want to use languages they like & will be marketable. How do I hire 
the programmers I need?"

"My staff doesn't like Ada and I don't want to force them to use 
something they don't like because they won't be as productive."

"Industry in general ignores Ada so I can't get the tools I need - or I 
can only at a much higher cost..."

"Other, more popular languages, come with things that give me leverage 
in developing the product I need so I get to market sooner..."

"I've already got existing software in Language X and all the related 
things I have to connect to are in Language X, so why do I want to incur 
the extra cost of using some other language?"

'Ada is a dying language and I need to use something that is going to 
have a future..."

There are obviously more but the important thing is that these concerns 
are *REAL* and *VALID* - if not *TECHNICAL*. So if Ada doesn't want to 
just slowly go down the toilet, it ought to look to addressing the 
concerns of that manager voicing those objections. Telling him he's 
wrong and stupid is only going to get you dismissed as a kook because he 
*knows* his concerns are legetimate and important. Why not address those 
concerns and take the language in a new direction that might start 
alleviating some of them?

MDC


Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
> BTW, there is no big difference between the "luck-based" theory and one of
> Marin. Both agree that technical issues are irrelevant. The "luck-based"
> theory stops here. Marin and you continue that probably managers have some
> other [supreme, unknowable] reasons for their choices. Maybe. But this
> changes nothing. And nothing techincal can be made about Ada to change
> that. Because see above, technical issues are irrelevant.
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================