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-Thread: a07f3367d7,499dc364d2fd8ade
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada in Boeing 787
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <56eb5a1a-4fb7-48ef-9ab0-c096abd73346@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <4b6a9f20$0$7619$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:05:44 +0100
Message-ID: <o7ocemes58su.peqkfaf7qrl2$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Feb 2010 12:05:44 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: e7f51c49.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Do`H<;eZ>E2=FQB?mjjV50ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1<`=YMgDjhg2^WGQCe:M8X;[6LHn;2LCV>7enW;^6ZC`4IXm65S@:3>?NcL4iLOM9K;
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8883
Date: 2010-02-04T12:05:44+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:19:13 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Is there any new language that is largely being used for
> technical applications?
> 
> Ichbiah said, in 1984, that we would be using different
> programming 30 years from then. Do we? I mean, do we
> actually use them in embedded systems?

The focus moved from languages to the tools and "technologies." The
languages obviously failed to deliver acclaimed software quality while
reducing software developing costs. I doubt that tools did either, maybe
the opposite, but this is how it works in the area I know.

I think the reason why tools won is that the language design is far more
expensive and the market was ruined if ever existed. Producing a new tool
chain is a much easier task. Once you fooled the customers you are in
business. Before they recognize that the tool is useless, you or other firm
come up with another tool, on the top of the old one...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de