Re: Ada and QNX

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <1FwFbWdX$ENE@eisner.decus.org>,
  Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:
> In article <8sg6g2$eur$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar
<robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>
> Obviously you and I differ regarding how well they do at
> filling the existing channels and how more channels might
> affect that but continuing that line would be quite off topic.

True, but since you continued it, I will too :-) Right now
I get 1.25 HDTV 1050i channels, I would definitely prefer
more 480p channels, it will be a while before HDTV is subject
to channel bloat :-)
>
> > Why is this relevant to comp.lang.ada? Well a lot of our
> > discussion and support of Ada is based on alledged technical
> > superiority, I say alledged because it is not so easy to
prove
> > superiority in this field. What we need to be sure of is
that
> > the factors that we stress are indeed those that are
important
> > and real.
>
> A good point, rarely considered here.  It needs a buzz-word

Suggestions welcome!

>
> > I recently saw someone say in an influential list on Ada
that
> > they thought that the fact that Ada had a better defined
> > standard was a crucial element to Ada's success. My own
feeling
> > is that even if this were true (it is not!) then it would
not
> > be terribly important, and if we concentrated on that aspect
> > to the exclusion of others, we would definitely be making
the
> > beta mistake, and even if we DID achieve a better defined
> > standard, it is not what would impress the real world.
>
> I would say that Ada has a more widely accepted standard than
> many of the alternatives.  The absolute number of Pascal
compilers
> that attempt to implement the full Extended Pascal standard
seems
> to be about 2.  Certainly the percentage is frightening. I
tried
> some conversion software to regularly transform Pascal code
from
> one dialect to another, and it was a burdensome experience.
>
> > What arguments would impress management. Well try this on
> > for size "Ada will help you achieve level 3 CMM more rapidly
> > and realiably". I suspect this is definitely true, and I
could
> > (and have) written papers to support this, but I would be
> > interested in other people's viewpoints. There's a tecnical
> > advantage that definitely WOULD play in some circles.
>
> But in other circles the only possible technical advantage
that
> could play is "time to market".  I believe for the slight
change
> of "time to market with a defect rate less than X" could be
won
> by Ada for suitably small X.  Not all circles will care, but
some
> will care who do not care about CMM

Absolutely! I was not suggesting that this be the ONLY or even
MAIN reason for pushing Ada, just one more interesting one that
will be relevant for certainly circles




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.