[log in to unmask] wrote:
> In <[log in to unmask]>, on 04/22/98 at 02:25 PM,
> Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]> said:
> >My point is that the market is not demanding reliable software or
> >maintenance of an existing software base.
> >The "mainstream" software consumer accepts crashes and problems as "how things
> >are," or even points with secret pride at how often his system crashes -- proof
> >that he's on the "cutting edge." So the
> >people who build systems for those consumers won't spend time or
> >money to improve the reliability or maintainability of their products.
I believe we are missing they very important point in this discussion.
That Ada has not had the typical history of a programming language. The
result of the mandate was to cause an abnormal price structure for Ada.
I was involved in the commercial world during the early time of the
language and was not able to justify the cost of an Ada compiler for
whatever project I wanted to use it on. Several of these projects used
C compilers that came with the operating system. But I was able to
convince my management to purchase a Pascal compiler but the cost of a
Ada compiler was several times the cost of the Pascal compiler. This
gave Ada a bad reputation in the commercial world as very expensive and
aimed solely at the military market.
I have often thought that if the military had waited for a year or two
to mandate the language that it would have had a better chance in the
commercial market place. One will never know if this is true but it is
interesting to speculate on what if kind of questions. My great hope
that this point is that GNAT will have a they enough effect on the
market at in next several years the will start to see some growth in the
use of Ada.
Has usual please are my opinions and not those of a past or present
The MITRE Corp; 202 Burlington Rd MS m346; Bedford, MA 01720
EMail: [log in to unmask]