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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f8432149982f35e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fca1b,5f8432149982f35e X-Google-Attributes: gidfca1b,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Ada and QNX Date: 2000/10/18 Message-ID: <8skta0$bou$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 683008221 References: <8r1i82$ri3$1@kujawiak.man.lodz.pl> <8r5pe5$h70$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8FCDFD7EEnopenopena@63.209.170.206> <39EA6305.CD5CFE1F@ix.netcom.com> <39EA9161.6469DDE2@home.com> <39EB1BA2.B5F2BFDF@acm.org> <39EB283A.9F7B4F76@motorola.com> <39EB662D.F2C8B55B@acm.org> <8sg6g2$eur$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <1FwFbWdX$ENE@eisner.decus.org> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x52.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.240 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Oct 18 19:22:50 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.os.qnx X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 2000-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 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.