Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?

[jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4ppceg$gha@gde.GDEsystems.COM> Tom Robinson <robinson@gdesystems.com> writes:

> 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.

I don't think this is a very good measure.  I would guess (don't know
for sure, but would be surprised otherwise) that well over half of all
C (and C++) is done using only three compilers: MSC++, Borland C/C++
and Gnu C (with g++).  It wouldn't surprise me if these accounted for
three quarters of the code.  Even at only half of all such code, that
is a _very_ successful market.  With only a couple three vendors.

The real measure for how successful Ada95 is and will be, will be
reflected in how many _customers_ ACT (including Digital and SGI),
Thompson, Intermetrics, and OC Systems have and will get.  Even if
they just plain quit validating altogether.  As for the goofy
government, well, I don't see why they should be wigged out over using
an unvalidated Ada compiler when they are perfectly willing to use
MSC++.  If "you're" (rhetorical you) going to waste time obtaining
waivers, why not get a waiver for validation?

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com