Re: Open Systems closed to Ada?

[mcsun!uknet!yorkohm!minster!mjl-b@uunet.uu.net]

In article <SRCTRAN.92Dec1230203@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory 
Aharonian) writes:
>[.....................]
>>Even those who profess to like C++ think its greatest feature is backwards
>>compatibility with C.
>
>Backwards compatibility is a concept that translates poorly into the defense
>world.  In the real world, companies can't afford to write off the investment
>it has in existing software and programmers (companies don't have the tax
>dollar till to constantly dip into), nor can companies ignore the supply of
>programmers and software tools in the marketplace that it draws from (again
>unlike the DoD, which has tax dollars to develop tools (like STARS) and
>programmers whenever it feels like it).

>In fact, the very "backwards compatibility" which you seem to be making
>fun of is what will probably prevent Ada from establishing any significant
>role in the commercial marketplace. C++ and Object Oriented Cobol (which
>even I think is strange) aren't as nice as Ada, but they are backward
>compatible.

I would argue that the industry cannot afford to continue to develop
software the way it does at the moment. It all just costs too much, which is
what the High Order Language Working Group was all about, way back in the
1970s. Ada is useful as *one part* of the way forward, but we need also need
tools and *better educated* engineers.

The cost in the short term will be high -- calling it "writing off the
investment" is exaggerating. It's not as if everyone has to start from
scratch. But the long term savings are worth it.

Apologies if this all sounds a bit like The Journey To The Promised Land --
it's not meant to be as grandiose or pretentious as that!

>Greg Aharonian

Mat

| Mathew Lodge                      | "I don't care how many times they go    |
| mjl-b@minster.york.ac.uk          |  up-tiddly-up-up. They're still gits."  |
| Langwith College, Uni of York, UK |  -- Blackadder Goes Forth               |