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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.germany.com!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: Cesar Rabak <csrabak@yahoo.com.br>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:40:12 -0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <eplsvd$1uu$1@aioe.org>
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <20070123211651.c0d43695.tero.koskinen@iki.fi>
 <87zm89tpk7.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <ep7al8$vm5$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <4q4pqgmdwo.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <ep9q80$uul$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <1169719988.972296.121430@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
 <4iauh.1157694$084.1040745@attbi_s22> <wcac06d6xh.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <Ymfuh.321356$FQ1.7034@attbi_s71>
 <fL7vh.14164$ji1.12684@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> <epj3e4$j7p$1@aioe.org>
 <nwtzyasrgf.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wklhi55tB/huEK4HCsA6Ww.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
In-Reply-To: 
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061109)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8693
Date: 2007-01-29T20:40:12-02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Markus E Leypold escreveu:
> Cesar Rabak <csrabak@yahoo.com.br> writes:
> 
>> present beliefs in the SW industry are that the process (CMM sense) is
>> what makes SW more reliable or not.
> 
> Well, that is not completely wrong, you know. 

Yes I know!

> Though usually in
> practice are code reviews are rarely done, despite the fact that they
> are known to be the best instrument for creating code of high quality.
> 
> 
>> Upper management is used to navigate in the muddy waters of non
>> perfect systems: unreliable OSs, virus/worm/trojan threats, so coping
>> with a 'popular' language is part of the (usual) business.
> 
> Which just means they recognize the value of the "things that already
> exist" oas opposed to "the things that would have yet to be
> written". A wise attidute indeed.

My only issue with this is the lack of a quality metric to ascertain the 
adequateness of the 'thints that already exist'.

> 
>> Another question we tend to forget about C is the formidable ecosystem
>> that exists to help companies to get right with lint-like tools,
>> memory checkers, etc.
> 
> Exactly my point. This mitigates the "C is utter s***" judgment a bit.
> 

I think so, too, and for the worse (at least for me when I try to use 
Ada technology) one can even hear that "...in C the use of these tools 
and their expenditure is at users will...whereas...".

[snipped]

>> Food for thought:
>>
>> Let's see, if we pick a recent project (Next-Generation James Webb
>> Space Telescope) what would be the proposed language by IBM?
> 
> Perhaps mot C#. What do you suggest?

I don't have a clue, but even in the site from Rational (where there is 
mention to other IBM products) there is not a word about Ada...

> 
> Regards -- Markus
>