TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 14 May 1997 18:04:22 -0700
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (34 lines)
The decision to abandon Ada is not unlike snatching defeat from
the jaws of victory.  Or perhaps it is more like giving up on the
Marquis of Queensbury for a good street brawl.  At exactly the moment
in the history of programming languages that an excellent standard
emerges, we walk away from it because its predecessor was too unpopular.

The DoD could not manage a single-language policy so they have decided
to try managing a multi-language policy.  I fear that, in ten years we will
see the result of this new policy as a mangled heap of obsolete, largely
orphaned, COTS software near a trash-pile of illegible and unmaintainable
C++ source code.

How much of the software acquired and developed under this
new policy will be what someone once described as "a pile of dry
rot held up by a flying buttress?"   Perhaps I am excessively
pessimistic. A few intelligent program managers may bravely take the SEPR
seriously and insist that our mission-critical software continue
to use Ada.  Now their only incentive for choosing Ada is their personal
dedication to doing the right thing. Let's hope this is incentive enough
when they are confronted by mobs of advocates for each new day's popular
language fad.

Richard


Richard Riehle
[log in to unmask]
AdaWorks Software Engineering
Suite 30
2555 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(415) 328-1815
FAX  328-1112

ATOM RSS1 RSS2