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: 101deb,af27044bbd8d36a1 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,86616b1931cbdae5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Is Ada likely to survive ? Date: 1997/08/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 265027307 References: <33D005F2.E5DCD710@kaiwan.com> <5qp3cf$aqc$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bc977a$adaf91a0$8cb45ec3@newart.artel.it> <5rrtlt$i99$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <5s6q6b$f3$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <33ECDD08.3724@ibm.net> <5t67ti$5qf$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 Date: 1997-08-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: <> Tell that to the stockholders! Multics most certainly was a failure. And indeed the aftermath of that failure had a very significant effect, particularly at Bell. Sure, from a technical point of view, Multics was a fine system (note that the designers of Ada were multics based in the early Ada days, and the required Ada simulator was written for Multics, as well as the early Alsys bootstrap processor). However, it was a commercial failure. PL/1 is a similar story. Sure it is not dead (I still think that you are providing very weak examples, there are cases, not many, but some, of major companies doing commercial software in PL/1). Still, given the IBM intention that the language would effectively replace COBOL and Fortran, it must be considered a huge failure (and indeed is so-regarded by IBM these days -- that does not mean they will abandon it, no more than they will abandon OS/2, which is also a failure in terms of the plans, even though it was a technical succcess, and is still in wide use).