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!mnetor!uunet!actnyc!djs
From: djs@actnyc.UUCP (Dave Seward)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Commercialization of Ada Technology - Part 3
Message-ID: <756@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 88 23:25:09 GMT
References: <330@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> <728@actnyc.UUCP> <73@obie.UUCP>
Reply-To: djs@actnyc.UUCP (Dave Seward)
Organization: InterACT Corporation
Keywords: Commercialization
Summary: Not designed by the DoD
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <73@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes:
>The real kicker about Ada is that is was *not* designed to be a
>general-purpose language!
>
>There is a common misconception that the DoD looks on Ada as a
>programming language for all purposes; they do not.  Ada was created
>as a language that would be suitable for developing imbedded command,
>control, and communications (C^3) systems.
>
While I won't argue with the claimed intent of the DoD, I point out that
the DoD itself did not design Ada, rather it put out a spec, and then
approved the submitted language. IMHO Ada *was* designed as a general
purpose language, with specific real time capabilities worked in. THIS IS
MY OPINION ONLY, I have no inside information to substantiate it.

Dave Seward
uucp!actnyc!djs