CrossTalk article on Ada

CrossTalk article on Ada

[Ken Garlington]

See "Ada in the 21st Century" (Benjamin M. Brosgol, Ada Core Technologies)
in the March 2001 issue of CrossTalk magazine. A web version is available at

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2001/mar/mar01ind.asp

The Letters to the Editor section also contains several observations
regarding the previous issue's article "Is Ada Dead or Alive Within the
Weapons System World?" (Reifer et. al.). Contributors are:

Dennis Ludwig, Electronic Engineer, Warner Roberts-ALC

Tom Moran, Decision Aids

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D., Newport Instruments (Ada_Med Division)

re: crosstalk article on ada

["Riehle, Richard"]

Before we become too excited by the excellent article written by Ben Brosgol
and published in Crosstalk, we need to watch for the rebuttal promised by
the
editor in the Editor's Notes.   

The original piece by Reifer et al was fairly easy to refute, even though a
lot of
anti-Ada folks without much awareness of the current state of Ada took it
seriously.
The "opposing view" may be much more damaging.   

Ideally, Ada would be non-controversial.   That is probably too much to
expect of any
programming language.   The question is, will the controversy in the
Crosstalk forum
be a good thing or a bad thing?  Many shops use Ada quietly and effectively,
by choice
and without controversy.   Will this debate persuade C++ or Java enthusiasts
to select
Ada for their next project?  Hardly likely.   Will it raise a question about
the wisdom of
using Ada by those who are currently using it?  A bit more likely, I think.


This is not to suggest we remain quiet.   However, we must be conscious of
the reality
that advocacy will always foment contrary points-of-view.    A journal with
the wide
visibility of Crosstalk can influence opinions among important
decision-makers.  

Now.  I am wondering who is writing the "opposing view" for the future issue
of Crosstalk.

Richard Riehle  

                                  "He convinced against his will,
                                   Is of the same opinion, still ... "
Author unknown

-- 
Posted from monterey.nps.navy.mil [131.120.18.26] 
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Re: re: crosstalk article on ada

[Ted Dennison]

In article <F5AD48747FC0324EB21B2B2BD27D5E8698B48C@Saipan>, Riehle, Richard
says...
>
>Before we become too excited by the excellent article written by Ben Brosgol
>and published in Crosstalk, we need to watch for the rebuttal promised by
>the
>editor in the Editor's Notes.   
..
>Now.  I am wondering who is writing the "opposing view" for the future issue
>of Crosstalk.

I thought this *was* the "opposing view", with the article in the previous issue
being the original view. The previous article had a very similar blurb on it, so
I figured this was just the same blurb (badly) reworded a smidge to indicate
that this is the promised second article. Am I misreading things?

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: re: crosstalk article on ada

[Marin David Condic]

My reading of the blurb at the front seems to indicate that the "opposing
view" thing was a quote from the original article and that this was the
"opposing view" article that followed.

MDC

--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:c2Ot6.1990$94.2906@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <F5AD48747FC0324EB21B2B2BD27D5E8698B48C@Saipan>, Riehle,
Richard
> says...
> >
> >Before we become too excited by the excellent article written by Ben
Brosgol
> >and published in Crosstalk, we need to watch for the rebuttal promised by
> >the
> >editor in the Editor's Notes.
> ..
> >Now.  I am wondering who is writing the "opposing view" for the future
issue
> >of Crosstalk.
>
> I thought this *was* the "opposing view", with the article in the previous
issue
> being the original view. The previous article had a very similar blurb on
it, so
> I figured this was just the same blurb (badly) reworded a smidge to
indicate
> that this is the promised second article. Am I misreading things?
>
> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com