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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d274f280c8c4a8b8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-25 10:14:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: kcline@optelnow.net (Kevin Cline) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Mainstream Ada Date: 25 Feb 2002 10:14:21 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3C77CF8C.93F1837@adaworks.com> <3C78943B.9030600@mail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.23.5.11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014660861 31960 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2002 18:14:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 18:14:21 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20388 Date: 2002-02-25T18:14:21+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote in message news:<3C78943B.9030600@mail.com>... > Richard Riehle wrote: > > At present, functional requirements overshadow non-functional > > requirements in the world of commercial software. That is, > > features are easier to sell than quality. > > You know we usually fight over Ada vs. C++ issues, but I think > I'm going to take Ada's side here. I don't like Ada all that > much, but it's mostly for stylistic reasons. I believe, however, > that an Ada programmer can pound out features just as well, and > just as quickly, as a Java or C++ programmer. Are you really > suggesting that commercial software developers who choose Ada > will have to forego adding features to their software? The fundamental problem continues to be the lack of high-quality bindings to non-Ada facilities, e.g. OpenGL, Qt, relational databases, etc. This does indeed make it much more difficult to add features to Ada applications.