Re: "Forced to Use Ada"

[rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway)]

In article <6153@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway) writes:
>>...  Ada was designed to standardize software and it
>>could replace almost any language with exceptions being rare.

In article <7682@venera.isi.edu>, raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes:
>	Have you suggested that to a hard-core LISP user lately?
>
>	Standardization is precisely the greatest danger of ADA,
>	particularly because the DOD standard doesn't even permit
>	extensions.  If we accept the ADA standard we lose the
>	option to improve as we learn better ways to approach
>	software engineering.

A discussion on proposed extensions to Ada has been going on for a long
time in comp.lang.ada, I'll assume you're replying from comp.software-eng.
Several interesting ideas have emerged and I have hope the better ones will
be adopted.

>	Suppose somone designed a language provably better than these --
>	if we mandate an existing standard, such as ADA or C, we risk
>	preserving a dinosaur at the expense of suffocating mammals.
>	That's my usual comment about UNIX, but it also suits languages.

In X years you may have a point, but by then the next best language will
most likely replace Ada unless Ada keeps pace with extensions.  But for now,
lets at least upgrade the state of the practice to acceptable standards.
Since most programs are written in 20+ year old languages (ForTran & LISP
in the 50's, CoBOL & Pl1 & C in the 60's) we can begin building *new*
software using state of the art techniques and continue to make upgrades
in language design and techniques as often as necessary to ensure we
maintain the highest standards in the software industry.  As for keeping
Ada state of the art, I'm sure the sei would like to hear your suggestions
for better software design techniques and programming languages.  

Bob Hathaway
rjh@purdue.edu