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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!) Date: 1997/08/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 264582259 References: <33E503B3.3278@flash.net> <33E8FC54.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33E9B217.39DA@flash.net> <33EA5592.5855@flash.net> <33EB4935.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> <33EB754E.446B9B3D@eiffel.com> <33EBE46D.2149@flash.net> <33EF9487.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33F22B91.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bertrand said <> I think you missed my point. Everyone knows that you have a vested interest in seeing Eiffel succeed. Everyone knows that I have a vested interest in seeing Ada succeed. Nothing wrong with either situation, and it does not damage our integrity that we have these vested interests. What I was saying is that in this situation you have to be very careful that claims you make are solidly based, and objectively supportable. Personally I find people who make puffed claims for Ada a real menace, and I don't think it helps Ada one bit. In this case, I agree that DBC would have been sufficient, if employed in certain ways, to avoid the Ariane problem, but then so would a zillion other reasonable approaches. Arguing the benefits of DBC with regard to Ariane is perfectly legitimate. To say, or even vaguely imply, that it is a necessary part of any approach that could have solved this problem is so obviously "advertising puffery" [i.e. advocacy for a technology without any basis in fact] that it should be dismissed as such. If you never made a such a claim, then obviously what I say is inapplicable, and the person quoting this claim was in error (I really don't remember who it was that introduced this claim into the thread). I really think that your position is stronger if you are very careful to avoid over-inflated claims. That's because otherwise people will dissmiss them on the basis of self-interest. That's not a matter of questioning your integrity at all. It's a matter of effective tactics. I try to avoid making *any* positive statements about Ada that I cannot back up, precisely because I figure that people will just dismiss them on the grounds that I am trying to get rich (if it were true, which it is not, then I guess it just shows I don't succeed at everything I try :-) Anyway, I certainly did not mean to offend here, and I apologize if I did. Robert