At 10:46 AM +0000 31/5/00, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Say we were to write articles, what would be the best subjects to focus on?
>
>I guess it would depend on the target audience, but say we were
>writing articles
>for a professional journal, you would assume that the reader would
>have some (if
>not significant) experience in programming using some language or other.
>
>There are a number of things we could write about, most of which have already
>been done at some point or other e.g.:
>
>1) Dispelling the myths, e.g. Ada is...
>    a) huge (c.f. flexible)
>    b) complicated (c.f. reliable)
>    c) unwieldy (c.f. e.g. syntactically and semantically consistent)
>    d) slow (due to poor compiler development in the early days)
>    e) expensive (c.f.cost of GNAT!)


I think that making this the purpose of the article is a waste of time.
people don't want to be preached at from the pulpit of a self annointed
expert.


>2) Provide multi-language examples e.g. "I can do this in
>C/C++/Java/Assembler,
>how would I do it in Ada?".


this presumes they are interested in doing it in Ada.


>3) Point out how Ada can make things easier e.g.:
>    a) multi-tasking built in to the language
>    b) use of protected objects for mutual exclusion
>    c) representation and address clauses for easy hardware access
>    d) distributed programming.
>
>4) Current use of Ada, emphasising the non-military/aerospace use!
>
>Although no Ada article would be complete without it, I think it would be wise
>to try not to go overboard on the reliability aspect. I believe
>there is still a
>view that reliable <=> dull!


IMHO write a good system in Ada, and mention in passing throughout
the article if it was quick to develop, the level of adaptability it
has etc.

But i think you -have- to ensure that the people are interested in
the program that was written, not in the language per se.

Dale