Feasibility of using Ada in new development

["Andrew Carroll" <andrew@carroll-tech.net>]

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: 3 Sep 2004 00:14:09 -0700
> From: casecrab@yahoo.com (Case Crab)
> Subject: Re: Feasibility of using Ada in new development
[snip]
> And there's no reason data entry via a GUI has to be cumbersome.  It
> often is cumbersome because few GUI developers think about whether
> their application is usable without a mouse.  But if you get things
> like tab order and keyboard shortcuts right, a GUI can afford
> efficient data entry.  Quicken is a great example of a GUI program
> that can be operated easily without ever touching the mouse.
>
>
> ------------------------------
Quicken is related to Quickbooks and Quickbooks is also an example of a
program that has a good GUI.  See, when the mouse locks up because
Quickbooks and Windows can't seem to "get it right" you can use the
keyboard efficiently to press CTRL + ALT + DEL twice to reboot!!  Well,
_maybe_ that will work...

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Case is right, I'm just biased because I have been working with Windows
and Quickbooks the past few weeks (and off and on over the past few
years) and the longer I work with both the more they become a thorn in
my side.  Of course searching for other software packages and OS's that
are as "productive" as Windows and Intuit (to replace them) seems to
leave one empty handed, at least for small businesses who can't afford
anything more than XP Home Upgrade and Quickbooks Accounting.  The
"productivity" becomes directly related to the GUI and many other GUIs
fall extremely short of being "productive", mouse or no mouse.

So, in your feasibility study of Ada in new development I think you
should consider the fact that Microsoft and Intuit have invested
millions of dollars into usability studies and not one cent of that is
going to help you determine if Ada is feasible for YOUR new development.
I've struggled with the same issues/ideas/questions recently as I
researched Ada for "new development".  Take A# for instance.  I REALLY
like the idea of Web Services and Microsoft products make it SO easy to
generate services.  A# _can_ do .Net and I hoped that it could do Web
Services with .Net.  I wanted A# because I felt that somehow my
affiliation and use of it would somehow set me apart and above the
"cookie cutter MS deliverables".  The fact of the matter was that A#
couldn't do Web Services, Microsoft wouldn't loose any sleep if I didn't
use ASP.Net with C# and in the end my customers wouldn't know the
difference anyway.  Heck, they don't know the difference between
left-click and right-click half the time.

The thing that matters is that YOU are satisfied with a few select
languages and products that YOU are productive with, that they yield
excellent deliverables for your customers ("productive") and that using
them pays the bills.  ;-)  That's my two cents worth.

Andrew Carroll
Carroll-Tech
720-273-6814
andrew@carroll-tech.net