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: 103376,61727075d20a4300 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Ada95 Should be a Multivolume ISO Standard Date: 1996/10/01 Message-ID: <9610011027.AA12679@nile.gnat.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 186433317 sender: Ada programming language comments: cc: 73313.2671@compuserve.com, engle1c@ncr.disa.mil, oec@ocsystems.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: A short postscriopt here. Bob Leif says "L. Introduction: Professor Dewar and I have different views on the advisability of making interim changes to the Ada Standard. I suspect that we are looking at the problem from two different prospectives. He is viewing it, as a superb software engineer, and I am looking at it from a business --More--perspective. I believe the vast majority of the readers of this note wo very much like to see greater commercial usage of Ada. I hope my arguments lead to a way to accomplish this without sacrificing the quality of Ada's design." This is an inaccurate characterization of my views. I am the CEO of one of the very few companies that is dedicated to the commercial success of Ada. My view are entirely motivated from a business point of view, I think a shifting standard for Ada, which involved the incorporation of inevitably less well reviewed extensions would be damaging from a business point of view.