[log in to unmask] writes:
> [log in to unmask] (Jerry van Dijk) quoted and then wrote:
> >> >Really, I don't mind the safety-critical, high-integrity angle. But it
> >> >would be nice to develop grass-roots support for Ada among those who
> >> >aren't necessarily in that domain.
> >> Safety-critical may be optional, but I have no interest in attracting
> >> Ada advocates who are not interested in high-integrity. It is quite
> >> possible to write lousy software in Ada, and the reputation of Ada is
> >> best preserved by not attracting those who want to go in that direction.
> >Are you _really_ saying that people like me should resign from this list
> >and stop using Ada and leave you high and mighty people who do the
> >really important work alone ?
> Hmmm, I just don't understand what I said that might have given offense.
> High-integrity to me means software that does what is needed for the
> at hand, reliably, day in and day out. If your interests are otherwise, I
> doubt that you would be on this list.
> Larry Kilgallen
The problem with your argument is that, it ignores that fact that a
person will come to value high integrity software only by using a
language the supports the paradigm.
There has to be interaction and feedback. Many programmers (say, using
C) are oblivious, because they don't get that feedback from their
language. What the Ada guys know just seems like theoretical
gobbledygook to them.
Here are a couple of books about cybernetic theory and constructivist
philosophy. Read them if you want to learn more about the importance of
General Systems Theory Beginning With Wholes
Allen and Ahl