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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,474ef6dae6b7cbe7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-25 11:00:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank Randolph CIV" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:59:39 -0400 Organization: ENST, France Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1051293627 31837 137.194.161.2 (25 Apr 2003 18:00:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:00:27 +0000 (UTC) To: "comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway" Return-Path: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP Thread-Index: AcMLJ+77QDkpO84KQ6G8DtkL/dMIewAJ9CiQ X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2003 17:59:40.0051 (UTC) FILETIME=[712E1630:01C30B54] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36562 Date: 2003-04-25T13:59:39-04:00 -----Original Message----- From: soft-eng [mailto:softeng3456@netscape.net] >>=20 >> Observation suggests that good software products do not necessarily >> become popular; and the methods and processes adopted in successful >> software projects do not necessarily get widely imitated.=20 > Where do you get this? People in the industry adopt what > they see succeeding. Just because it's succeeding doesn't mean it's a quality product. I could write for weeks about exceptions to this. The are so many things that succeed because they are cheap, not quality. People=20 just seem to accept the fact they shouldn't expect too much out of it. They're willing to take a gamble, and put up with some inconvenience or inferiority, just to save some money. I'm guilty of it. I get tired of people making the cheap choice and then suing because it failed, when no one should have been surprised. M$ Windows 3.0 was buggy and crashed often, yet it succeeded. Why, because it was cheaper than Apple/Macintosh, which was/is a superior product. I use to use Mac's at work, and I loved them, but I wasn't willing to spend double the price of a Windows PC to have one at home. Although Windows continues to improve (95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, and now = XP), it's still far from quality. Our NT and 2000 systems have to be = rebooted fairly frequently. I will say XP is about as close to a Mac as Windows has ever been. I use XP but I haven't done any development on it so = far, so I'm not familiar with those problems yet. But my point is, MS Windows was/is much more successful than Apple Macintosh, despite the fact it's an inferior product. Frank