Unfortunately, I have seen many Ada projects fail because of poor
management, poor/inefficient process, lack of tool support for the process,
I was warning against projecting Ada as the panacea for delivering on time
and under budget. Ada in the context of an appropriate process is the best
From: Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 December 1998 16:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Choose Ada flyer
To: Bill Taylor
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
I do agree with "Ada should be part of an overall strategy to develop
reliable, predictable, safe software."
I absolutely disagree with
"Choosing an appropriate process is far more significant in this respect
than choice of language."
I doubt if you have any proof of this statement. It is contradicted by about
10,000 years of human experience. The truth is one has an AND situation for
virtually all engineering and artistic efforts. One needs a good process AND
good tools and materials. Michelangelo was very particular about his choice
marble. A programming language is a tool. A simple counter example is: You
can not write a large program with reliability and at reasonable cost using
Lotus Macro language.
Rational will eventually realize that your customers will be unable to
separate the good practices and process that you provide from the horrors of
C++. Rational will take a significant hit for telling the customers what
they want to hear. One of the most important parts of a manufacturing
process is the selection of tools. For software that includes compilers.
Your customers will really receive value, as you stated below, when you sell
them both ROSE and an Ada compiler.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 1998 1:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Choose Ada flyer
> > When you need software On Time and Under Budget
> > Choose Ada
> There is a danger that such a claim will undermine the credibility of the
> other (stronger) claims for Ada.
> It appears far too naive.
> Using Ada is no guarantee of delivering on time and under budget, just as
> using another language is no guarantee of failure to deliver on time and
> within budget (but it certainly helps!).
> Choosing an appropriate process is far more significant in this
> respect than
> choice of language.
> Poor management, poor process, poor design will never bring a
> project in on
> time and under budget, whatever language is chosen.
> Ada should be part of an overall strategy to develop reliable,
> safe software.
> Bill Taylor
> [log in to unmask]