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,e29c511c2b08561c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93" Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/06/17 Message-ID: <96061717021600@psavax.pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 160758360 sender: Ada programming language comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU x-vms-to: SMTP%"INFO-ADA@VM1.NODAK.EDU" newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-vms-cc: CONDIC Date: 1996-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tom Robinson writes: >And, *I thought*, that the DOD was required to use validated compilers. But >I could be wrong on that. But *if it does*, then in order to sell to the DOD >companies would need to be on the validation list. Since the list is extremely >small when compared to Ada 83 I use it as the measure of how far along the >Ada 95 market is today. One measure of how successful Ada 95 is will be how >fast that list grows in the next 12 months as the gnat and AdaMagic based >compilers start hitting the market. > So far as I know, that requirement of using a validated compiler is still there. It's a shame that all the positive aspects of Ada 83 and Ada 95 haven't managed to persuade more people to use the language and there still seems to be a need to "mandate" its use. I believe that the biggest problems have been marketing and perception. It may not be too late to correct some of the perceptions, but it will take lots of effort. I'd suggest that those of us who produce applications in Ada start putting advertising hype into our applications. What if every time someone started that clever app of yours a screen popped up with not only the copywrite notice, etc. but in bold letters with lots of slick graphics, something to the effect of: This application written in Ada95: "When you care enough to write the very best." or This application written in Ada95: "Good to the last drop." or This application written in Ada95: "Mess with the best, die like the rest!" Whatever. You get the picture. If every time you ran an extremely reliable application and you noticed it was implemented in Ada95, you might start getting the message. (Anyone care to start a contest for the best "Ada95 Inside" slogan? e-mail your entries to me and I'll consolidate them and rebroadcast.) I know I have little trouble spotting the C/C++ based apps - they're the ones that die with mysterious segmentation violations or memory access errors because of abused pointers or array accesses that aren't range limited. Wouldn't quality products clearly advertising their implementation do a lot to persuade people that Ada is a "real" language capable of "serious" development and thus be worthy of consideration? Pax, Marin Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997 M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997 Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669 P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: MDCONDIC@AOL.COM =============================================================================== "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876. ===============================================================================