> Colbert 1 and 3: Dated material, but some parts are relevant
I'm pleased by your evaluation. I agree some parts are dated.
> Colbert 2: I strongly urge this package be removed. It compares the
> '91 version of C++ to Ada 83. While it's an interesting package
> historically, it's hardly worthwhile material for advocacy issues.
> Using this presentation as a case against C++ would only ensure that
> Ada is forever banished from that place :-) Honestly, the effort
> needed to update this slide series would be better spent just creating
> a new set of slides. This is NOT a slam on Ed...his slides are very
> good quality, and made good comparisons if the languages back then. I
> just don't feel it has a place in this advocacy package.
Thanks again for the compliment. When I sent this paper in originally (about 2 years
ago), I didn't think this would actually be included in the Advocacy package without
update. But, many people requested it, so I thought Rick might want to include it in the
PAL. I've been planing to update it. I actually have enough material prepared in other
presentations that I can pull together; but time has been the limiting factor. (I notice that
you haven't had this problem ;->).