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: 103376,2702c1ed8be62863 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* Date: 1998/12/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 420841602 References: <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch> <366D68CD.AFC12CAF@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com> Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-12-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Rick Thorne wrote: > I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in > commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a > standard the government has tried to bully on us. This is a misunderstanding of the whole idea behind the HOLWG (high-order language working group) that was the driving force behind the creation of Ada. They were charged with reducing the number of languages used on DoD projects. At the time the HOLWG was formed the number of different (high-level not assembly or machine) languages used was over 800. Today I would guess that the number in maintained systems is between 50 and 100, and, in systems in active development, less than a dozen. (Let's see, Ada, C, C++, Fortran, Cobol, SQL, Lisp, Perl, HTML, and a few others, so it could be over a dozen. Depends on how you count scripting and special purpose languages.) Now the HOLWG originally concluded that the optimum number of HLLs was one, but anyone working on a major Ada (or other language) development will tell you that while 90% of the development is in Ada, some is in shell scripts, SQL, and C, where that is the best choice for that particular piece of the job. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...