Re: When cross-posting, don't annoy the pig

["Mike Silva" <mjsilva@jps.net>]

I've been thinking about this since it was posted, and I agree that
gratuitous (key word!) Ada references are to be avoided.  Still, in many
language-neutral groups that are quite relevant to Ada there seems to be an
unspoken C/C++ "assumption".  I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to
post some form of Ada mini-FAQ to these groups, not covering the entire
language in detail, but focusing on those areas of the language which are
appropriate to the particular newsgroup.  Examples of language-neutral
groups that seem to beg for Ada info would be comp.arch.embedded,
comp.realtime, comp.robotics and comp.programming.threads (it's quite likely
that a single mini-FAQ could cover all of these groups).  I would see such
mini-FAQs as analagous to the CPU-specific FAQs posted in the first three
groups.  There are probably other, more general-purpose groups that could
also be considered.

Anyway, that's my thinking.  It seems a shame that so many groups where Ada
would be a natural never hear about it.

Mike

Tucker Taft wrote in message <38600FF9.4B3BE3CA@averstar.com>...
>There is an old folk saying, that goes roughly:
>
>   Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the
pig.
>
>Readers of comp.lang.ada have recently been encouraged to cross-post
>items to comp.programming.threads and comp.os.vxworks.  That sometimes
>seems appropriate, but regular readers of those other news groups
>definitely do not welcome gratuitous mentions of Ada just for the
>sake of it.
>
>If there is something really meaningful to say that
>relates to Ada, fine.  But don't go trying to convince everyone
>in other newsgroups that Ada is the solution to all problems.
>It wastes your time, and it annoys the reader of the other newsgroup.
>
>--
>-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
>Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
>AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA