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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5faad1722103f6a7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <90Stc.15309$be.3117@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <40b86431$0$186$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk> <40B888E0.5040707@noplace.com> <40B8C86A.3050302@noplace.com> <40BE6BFD.8030305@noplace.com> <40BF141F.8020001@noplace.com> <40C38E7C.64564F@notes.udayton.edu> Subject: Re: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 02:22:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.218.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1086661325 66.81.218.8 (Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:22:05 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:22:05 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1225 Date: 2004-06-08T02:22:05+00:00 List-Id: "I R T" wrote in message news:oenv7hhc.fsf@pop-server.bigpond.net.au... > Association with the military was the kiss of death as far > as many developers were concerned. > > COBOL also had the benefit of backing by IBM. Actually, the story is a little different. I recall a large USAF project in the late 1960's where IBM was pushing PL/I, and pushing it hard. At that time, there were seven other mainframe companies that wanted to bid on the contract, but only CDC had anything like a useful PL/I compiler. The "Seven Dwarfs" spearheaded by Burroughs and Honeywell protested the PL/I requirement and persuaded the USAF to specify COBOL instead of PL/I. IBM, which intended to let COBOL die a slow death in favor of its own language, was forced to revive its COBOL effort. In the end, IBM did not win the contract. As I recall, it was won by Burroughs. IBM wanted COBOL gone. The only reason it kept it alive was to satisfy RFP requirements from the DoD. In time, COBOL became the dominant language for business data processing, even though IBM continued to insist on the superiority of PL/I. The fact is that PL/I was a superior language. However, it was so dramatically different in look and feel from the languages it was intended to replace (Fortran and COBOL) that neither language user group found it attractive. If IBM had been successful with PL/I, there would probably never have been an Ada. The fundamental elements were already in PL/I, but it also had a lot of inherent flaws that needed to be rectified before it could be selected. BTW, the first Alsys Ada compiler was, if I recall correctly, written in PL/I. Ada was, and always has been, a far better language than PL/I, but PL/I could have been improved with a little effort and cooperation from IBM. However, PL/I, at that time, had already earned a widespread bad reputation, much as Ada has today. Overcoming a bad reputation for a language is almost impossible, even when the language has improved as much as contemporary Ada. I was in a meeting last week where someone commented, "The Chair of our computer science department believes the DoD has banned Ada." With this kind of misinformation as widespead as it is, we will have a difficult time digging Ada out of the hole it is now in. It has been suggested we rename the language. I think it is better to follow Marin's advice and simply build the best systems we can using it. Also, we need to counter the idiotic claims made in ACM's Queue magazine. Richard Riehle