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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Modernizing Ada Message-ID: <6700@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 8 Oct 89 17:56:44 GMT References: <20600009@inmet> Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu List-Id: >From article <20600009@inmet>, by stt@inmet: > Here is the wording from the Ada9x project plan: > A revision requirement that does not meet the "upward compatibility" > criteria will only be considered if it affects a very large > portion of the Ada community and its absence in the > revised standard has a serious negative impact on application development. Multiple inheritance, for example, meets both criteria and therefore should be considered regardless of whether or not upward compatibility is affected. Every effort must be made to minimize the difficulty of the transition, but not at the expense of capabilities which are vital to the modernization of our software engineering technology. Saving money on software development is the fundamental motivation behind software engineering, and the fundamental motivation behind Ada itself. If a situation arises in which commercial organizations can use a language which is up-to-date and thereby produce Government software systems at a lower cost than can be achieved by those using a hypothetical 9X which failed to track advancements in software engineering technology, then Ada will have FAILED in its mission. The consequence of this would be that the entire Ada organization would be scrapped. Critics of government would gleefully claim that Ada was yet another example of how anything the government touches becomes inefficient, obsolescent, and doomed to failure. Are they right? Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu