Re: Ada's Slide To Oblivion ...

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in message news:<a3a19n$db9$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> An interesting article. One could argue about the accuracy of the survey,
> but it probably isn't that far off from reality.

The only thing I found completely wrong was the assertion that you
can't call an Ada compiler "Ada" without going through validation or
the copyright holder to the term will come after you. The DoD isn't
enforcing that copyright anymore. It is the Ada community that demands
validation, not any one entity. But that would probably have been
tougher to explain properly.

> The good news is that if people are writing thoughtful articles like this
> and observing that Ada really does have benefits (despite lack of use) maybe
> it might generate some renewed interest. The fact that they're writing about
> it at all is a sign that Ada isn't a non-issue. IOW, "I don't care what they
> say about Ada as long as they capitalize its name right!" :-)

I really think Ada 83 was just *waaaaay* ahead of its time. Back in
the 80's and early 90's you'd quite often hear people seriously argue
*against* type checking. These days that's pretty rare (see some of
Eric Raymond's writings, if you want a trip back in that particular
way-back machine). Now that folks are using Java and C++ regularly and
can see for themselves the benifits to compile-time checking and
object-oriented design, suddenly Ada doesn't look so bad any more.

-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html