You and several other people have said that a language perceived as
great for safety critical applications won't even be considered for
non-safety critical applications.
Why is that?
Do you think there is a perception that there's a lot of extra
overhead or difficulty in using a "safety critical" language?
If we can identify the obstacle, it may be possible to add some kind
of bridging statement that will help people make the desired
connection that if Ada's good for safety critical applications it'll
be great for conventional applications that have to be reliable
(which means virtually every application).
Per Dirk Craeynest's posting, he seems to have been able to
communicate the link between safety critical and reliable software to
a journalist. Can this be communicated in a sentence or two?
Jeff Burns, Director of Marketing
One Hopkins Place
Ithaca, NY 14850
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
From: Jerry van Dijk <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: Choose Ada flyer
>> When your software has to fly...
>> Choose Ada.
>> Ada is the language of the International Space Station, Boeing
>> world-wide Air Traffic Control, and the French TGV high-speed
>My first impression is: obviously a great language for safety
>applications. We do not build safety critical applications, so... we
>stick to C++ (or JAVA, or...)
>Does anyone else get the same impression or is this just me again ?