re: pro Ada argument?

[forsyth@minster.york.ac.uk]

>From horst@pcsbst.UUCP (horst)
>... Nobody answered the argument that I thought would be THE one
>in favor of Ada:

>  It's not the programmers that decide which language to use in the future

>In the European Market we expect to have laws in 1992 that resemble the
>American Laws of Product Responsibility. As far as I know, those can make
>an implementor responsible for any consequences of using an implementation
>language which is not considered the best choice. And there are strong
>signals that Ada will be the default 'best choice' for lawyers. Is this
>not true for the US?

Horst Kern reports a novel approach to software engineering: let the
lawyers do it.  What a good way of settling technical arguments!  (See
Jacques Ellul's `The Technological Society' [La Technique] for some interesting
consequences of similar ideas.)  Still, I suppose it was no more than
computer scientists deserved for having the temerity to write `expert systems' in Prolog
to analyse the British Nationality Act (1981).  I take it that EEC
legislators will suffer similar penalties if they produce poor `products'
of their own?  Stoppage of claret, perhaps?

Mind you, a good QC with some help (technical advice and an annotated copy
of all those AI-123 notes) should have lots of fun with Ichbiah in the witness box.
Perhaps we should book Leo McKern now?