TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Soeren Henssel <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:13:17 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (27 lines)
-- I curious as to Team Ada's take on the "Is Ada Dead or Alive Within the
-- Weapons System World?" article in the December 2000 CrossTalk (The
-- Journal of Defense Software Engineering).  Please, note that the first
-- hree (somewhat disheartening) figures were developed using data from
-- The article can be viewed at:
You can have many approaches in critique to this article. To me it is narrow
minded looking at weapons systems, but considering CrossTalks readership
this is actually OK. As one working in the "real world", there is a groving
support for getting better language choises than c/c++. So outside the DoD
community Ada is live and kicking. But any language shall always be
evaluated in the SW Engineering process context - if the process is failing
Ada will not help you much.

Secondly - the many links to AdaHome is not helping our aim to promote Ada -
maybe we should try to establish an AdaPortal instead?

As a closing remark I think that the authors try to have a *fact* based
approach for evaluating Ada usage. You might not agree or like the figures
but I still think that the article is quite fair in that context.

Greetings  /søren