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-Thread: a07f3367d7,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:52:24 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <e1076cab-2a7e-4762-acf4-80bf807614bf@n16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5306a0$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <76c123ab-7425-44d8-b26d-b2b41a9aa42b@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5310ab$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <9bff52ca-6213-41da-8fa4-3a4cdd8086d3@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5315c8$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <159dca70-2103-46d7-beb2-c7754d30fe36@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <4d53222d$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <bc7802fb-0184-437b-b0fa-9ba0ff260c04@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <4d540714$0$27423$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <e491f5ad-ae17-42fd-9412-f457d32ac217@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5423b9$0$27423$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <867afa64-090f-48bf-93a3-54ec23b51381@f18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <4d555f9a$0$27376$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <1sfshkbj9yjb8.ois7uj3gbxw7.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d558091$0$27376$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <op.vqq4xiz1lzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.vqq4xiz1lzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d55856f$0$27376$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1da5c17a.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=g9A=GV=`^Of8d]^hTaQQ2e^oXGM_6\KV`mX0AG3X_jUoWonLZPGF:dmVjKk:Lk^BNacR12TN^Bg7nL=<PNCjPL;aOb:Tjk=RUdd
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18219
Date: 2011-02-11T13:52:24-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/11/2011 1:42 PM, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>> But software developers have switched to languages which
>> they believe will improve what they produce;
>
> No. For example, I know a project where the developers switched
> from Pascal to C++, because C++ was "object-oriented" and Java was
> too slow. Productivity was so good, that the project was cancelled
> three years later.

And they switched because they believed that "object oriented"
programming languages would help them improve what they produced.
Even Ada bowed to this paradigm, no?

> IME, "productivity" has never been a real factor, things like "it
> looks familiar", "it has a Windows IDE", or "everybody else uses it"
> were far more important.

When the world tells you what it considers important, you ignore it
at your peril. You speak of a project that was canceled after three
years. What of Ada itself? Hasn't it too been "canceled" by the market?
And how exactly do you believe a language goes from non-existence to
ubiquity if the driving force is "everybody uses it"?