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,e4b2dce209393666
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Business Week (12/6/99 issue) article on Software Quality
Date: 1999/12/09
Message-ID: <82pacl$k26$1@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 558750329
References: <B46A7702.169C%houseofcards@surfree.com>
 <m37liyerpj.fsf@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <82hk54$cbc$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net> <82lv4i$aso$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <82mle2$3v3$1@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net> <82p4de$ima$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-Server-Date: 9 Dec 1999 22:27:33 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-09T22:27:33+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <82p4de$ima$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
	Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:

>In article <82mle2$3v3$1@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
>  Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Please craft your own response to the Business Week article if you
>
>I'm not entirely sure it merited one. I agree that they missed a rather
>rich problem source in the obstinate use of error-prone languages. But
>at least they didn't *blame* Ada for problems. That's a good start. :-)

In fact, Ted, I did not intend to write a response.  Then I was 
contacted by some people in the Ada community who suggested I
write one.  You are certainly correct that not blaming Ada was
a good start.  

Once I decided to honor the request to write a response, I thought
carefully about my audience.  I realized that most of the readers
are not software practitioners, but also that most of them have the
opportunity to influence software decisions and raise good questions.
In that spirit, I crafted each sentence quite carefully, made each
one intentionally provocative, and inserted the mention of Ada as
almost a "by the way."  Perhaps I could have done this better had I
taken more time.  Perhaps it would be more acceptable to the software
practitioners on this forum if I had first submitted it for approval.

It is as it is.  I cannot apologize for any part of it since no part of
it, except the typo "disclaminer" was an accident.  The entire piece, or
some part of it may have been a mistake (not a bug), but that is another
issue.  

>Being a cynic, I suspect that editors often select the letters that are
>the *least* sensible-sounding, or have bizzare or easily refutable
>points. Given that viewpoint, more letters would be a *bad* thing, as
>some are bound to be worse. :-)

A cynic? Bow wow!  I never would have guessed that.  :-)  Seriously,
Ted, your objections to my viewpoint are always welcome.  I really do
understand that my assertions are sometimes a bit over the top, but
extremism in the defence of extremism is no vice.  As to what editors
select, I find they select letters based on some little phrase they
find entertaining rather than what they find sensible.  I tried to 
make the response entertaining, but who knows if they will find it so.

Thanks for a lively conversation,

Best regards from cla's resident shrill and crackpot,   :-)

Richard Riehle   

          P.S.  Some of my colleagues in Silicon Valley consider me
                a shrill and crackpot for espousing Ada.  Sigh.....