I recommend collecting some of these and adding them to a FAQ list or FUD
Fighter file. Dissemination of the list to non-Ada audiences at regular
intervals would be a goal.
Presidential Campaign rules - always react to any charge by the opposition
no matter how absurd.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Spannring [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "Why Not Ada"
> It is interesting reading through some of the comments. I think that
> Ada supporters would do good to study those answers. These are the
> reasons (right or wrong) people don't use Ada. If you want to
> increase Ada's use, you better find a way to address these issues.
> AdrianG wrote:
> My understanding is that Ada was designed, in part, to help keep
> the programmer from making some kinds of mistakes.
> And keeping the programmer from making mistakes is a bad thing?
> Hynman wrote:
> Ada was developed by the government, for military
> applications. Since it's scope was so specialized
> I've run into this before. It is interesting that many people think
> Ada is too specialized. I'm sure if people found out that one of the
> design goals of Ada was to eliminate the hundreds of specialized
> languages used at DOD people would complain that it was too
> Skweetis wrote:
> I don't use Ada because there aren't very many library bindings
> for it.
> Finally a criticism that isn't completely false.
> Microsoft/Sun/SGI/etc has legions of programmers and are constantly
> defining new APIs. Everyone else will always be one step behind.
> underclocked wrote:
> There are almost no professional opportunities for ADA
> This is always a hard one to get around without a substantial pocket
> book. Witness the mini-compact disk. Nobody uses them because nobody
> produces inexpensive mini disk players. Nobody produces inexpensive
> mini disk players because nobody uses them.
> In my own project, I'm having a hard time gaining management
> acceptance for Ada. I've worked through all of the other fallacies
> about Ada, but I'm having a hard time convincing management that good
> Ada programmers are just as easy to get as good C++ programmers.
> ader wrote:
> Anyway, the only programming projects I really enjoyed were the C
> Many people enjoy the arcane. It makes people proud of themselves
> when they track down a problem on their own. On the other hand, Ada
> compilers do nothing but criticize. The compiler is constantly
> saying, "Your code is wrong." People don't like criticism. They'd
> much rather have compiler that says, "Yes, your code is wonderful."
> Later on they even get the self-esteem boost when they track down
> the bugs. For most people finding and fixing bugs is a self-esteem
> boosting process. Ada limits that indulgence.
> Arrogant-Bastard wrote:
> specifically the design-by-committee approach
> It is a common perception that Ada was designed by committee and is
> therefore bad. This is just an example of how people make up their
> minds first and justify their opinions later. Facts don't matter to
> people, only opinion matters.
> Alex Otier writes:
> > The question was sent to Slashdot over the weekend, the URL is here
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/06/1435238
> > --
> > Alex Otier
> Life is short. | Craig Spannring
> Bike hard, ski fast. | [log in to unmask]
> When all you've got is Perl, everything feels like a smashed thumb