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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c6e9700a33963193 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard D Riehle Subject: Re: The future of Ada Date: 1999/03/10 Message-ID: <7c6gno$qqt@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 453495772 References: <36E690FA.4B9C@sandia.gov> Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Mar 10 11:21:28 AM PST 1999 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-03-10T11:21:28-08:00 List-Id: In article <36E690FA.4B9C@sandia.gov>, Gordon Dodrill wrote: >Ten months into the project, the project leader announced >very abruptly that Ada would be scrapped, C++ would be used, >and there would be a six month slip in the project to permit >training in C++ and rewriting the completed Ada code. His >reason - "There may not be any Ada programmers to do >maintenance several years from now, but we will always be >able to get C++ programmers." A project manager who makes this kind of decision probably does not understand Ada or C++. This kind of stupidity abounds. The one thing that seems to work out is, once a team that was programming Ada starts to really learn C++, they begin to realize the serious risks of associated with C++. Unfortunately, it is often too late to once again reverse the decision. This is sometimes called "buyer's remorse." The decision to abandon Ada in favor of C++ is almost always wrong. It is certainly wrong for safety-critical software, which is what most of the weapons systems are. >I am obviously frustrated. How can I continue to promote >the use of Ada when the numbers ... How can you possibly eat at a salad bar when the numbers of burger franchises clearly outnumber the number of salad bars? Richard Riehle richard@adaworks.com http://www.adaworks.com