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,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-02 22:02:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Anybody in US using ADA ? One silly idea.. Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 22:01:49 -0800 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1041573723 29633 137.194.161.2 (3 Jan 2003 06:02:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 06:02:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Envelope-From: rleif@rleif.com X-Envelope-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32475 Date: 2003-01-02T22:01:49-08:00 I have just spent a total of 12 of hours trying to open a file with = Windows XP Professional. This file was created under Windows 98 and still opens under 98. The customers would flock to something that worked!=20 In case this bug happens to anyone else, shorten the file names under an = old version of Windows. Evidently XP has a constraint that does not exist in = the older versions. Although XP has not crashed itself, many applications = still crash including Windows Explorer. Rebooting once a day is a reasonable = means of eliminating pointer garbage. Ada needs commercial products.=20 Bob Leif -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org = [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of Bill Findlay Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 8:43 PM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? One silly idea.. On 3/1/03 02:56, in article av2u64$qj$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net, "Marin David Condic" wrote: > Machismo may be interesting, but nobody is going to be fooled by = empty, > shallow, marketing for very long. It was a joke, Marin. > Eventually, they open the box up and see the same old Ada and word = gets out. "Same old Ada"? For all practical purposes Ada 95 is the same age as = Java. "Word gets out"? What word is that? Are you saying that there are = serious unacknowledged technical defects in Ada 95? Opposition to Ada in comp.arch fell into three categories, which I = parody (grotesquely unfairly, I admit 8-) as follows: (1) "We don't care about software quality. We make money selling **** written in C, and that's fine with us." (2) "We do care about software quality. We write our software in C (or other, even less safe, languages) and ensure its quality by being = faultless programmers and superior human beings. Ada is for talentless losers." (3) "Ada is too low-level. Our favourite language is = Functional-Telepathy/1, which generates an optimal program for you while you are still thinking about the specification. It should be implemented real soon now." Depressingly, type (1) critics were in a majority. When shown evidence = (the Rational data) that Ada could help them to make even more money, the response was "I don't believe it"; taken even to the point of suggesting that Rational had fabricated their figures. In other words: "I've no evidence of my own, so I'll find reasons to ignore yours". The intensity of denial was astonishing. Type (2) and type (3) critics tended to post from academic domains (no surprise 8-), although academia did not have a monopoly on false pride. It's interesting that essentially no-one objected to Ada on the grounds = of technical or pragmatic issues such as are are openly discussed here. > I don't think Ada is *bad* - That's damming with faint praise. I think Ada 95 is very, very good = indeed. > but it sure has a problem selling itself with "reliability", etc. > That's why I've become > convinced that a new emphasis and new tools might do a better job of getting > Ada accepted. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - that all we really had = to do > was change the name and use some more cosmetics - but I don't think = that's > the case. Why do you care whether anyone adopts Ada, if "reliability, etc" is not = the primary concern? I look at this the other way round. I want the general level of software quality to rise, and I believe that better = understanding and wider adoption of Ada would promote this objective. I'm more than = happy to make common cause with anyone, such as yourself, who has ideas about = how to make that happen. But I do not think that it is Ada that is the = barrier; and I do think that the barrier is fairly impenetrable. 8-( --=20 Bill-Findlay chez blue-yonder.co.uk ("-" =3D> "")