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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SEI.CMU.EDU!Judy.Bamberger
From: Judy.Bamberger@SEI.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Ada and the SEI and CACM Viewpoint
Message-ID: <9004111439.AA23790@fa.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Apr 90 14:39:34 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


   >>> Date: 10 Apr 90 17:24:55 GMT
   >>> From: cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!wtwolfe@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Bill Wolfe)
   >>> Subject: Recent CACM "viewpoint" article
   >>> Message-ID: <8676@hubcap.clemson.edu>
   >>> 
   >>>   Such inaccurate or incomplete information on Ada, *especially* in 
   >>>   a publication like CACM, needs to be straightened out very quickly;
   >>>   I hope that in addition to any discussion that might take place
   >>>   here in comp.lang.ada, someone from the SEI will write to CACM to 
   >>>   straighten out these two regarding the feasibility (yes) and the
   >>>   general advisability (no) of automatic Fortran-to-Ada translation, 
   >>>   as well as the alternative strategy of using pragma Interface, and 
   >>>   that someone from NUMWG, 9XWG, or both will write CACM regarding 
   >>>   the other technical points raised by Bailey.
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu

As an employee of the SEI, I would respectfully like to remind the readers of
this newsgroup that "SEI" translates into "Software Engineering Institute" - 
*NOT* "Ada Engineering Institute."  While we do some Ada work here, we 
primarily do software engineering, education, and technology transition, which 
all use a variety of languages (Ada, C, LISP, ..., Z, VDM, ..., English, 
American, Hebrew, ... ).

I would encourage everyone to read the aforementioned Viewpoint (CACM, April
1990).  Pardon me, but I found it a delightful piece, and can see some of us
writing Ada pieces on BOTH sides of the debate in 2010 (30 years after the Ada 
standard was first born).  That will be jolly fun!  This debate reminds me of 
the timeline that was published in Abacus a few years back, predicting the death
of COBOL and FORTRAN every 5 years or so ... if you haven't seen that, it, too,
is delightful.

Final observation - In the FULL CONTEXT of the ENTIRE letter in Viewpoint 
(which, to remind us all is just that - a *point of view* ... and there are 
MANY of those in this world - mebbe we should learn to be more tolerant of 
divergence?), I personally found nothing terribly "wrong" with what was said - 
however, I might have chosen other words to avoid some of the conclusion-jumping
that seems inherent in this community.  In any case, read; enjoy!