From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 24 Mar 92 18:23:19 GMT
From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net  (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: NTT rejects Ada for major operating system
Message-ID: <SRCTRAN.92Mar24132320@world.std.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

    NTT is often cited (Mosemann studies, et. al.) as one of the big 
non-defense users of Ada, often to make fun of ATT for sticking with C/C++.

    Well scratch it off your list.  A recent article in Electronics (3/92)
reports on a new Interface for Real-Time Operating Systems (IROS) that NTT
is developing for all of their future real-time telecommunications applications
efforts.  The languages being used:  C and Chill.

    On paper, Ada has features making it 'better' than C/C++.  Yet when given
the freedom of choice in a free market, the majority of decisions (such as
university acceptance, corporate acceptance, reusable library language, etc),
are in favor of C/C++.

    I contend flawed economic models are being used to compare and contrast
Ada and C++.  Economic models more reflective of the real world, if used for
these Defense studies, will probably show C++ is 'better' and why people
spending their own money prefer C/C++.  These models could then be used to
set policies to tip the balance in favor of Ada, if that is your goal.

    Right now these discussion should not focus on choice of language, but
why the current models seem to say 'if given the choice, use Ada', while
those given the choice don't.

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
P.O. Box 404
Belmont, MA  02178
617-489-3727