>>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...
>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
I didn't mean to suggest that this would be the purpose of the article, this has
been done too many times before but the items I suggested are issues that could
(should) be addressed probably within the body of the article, probably with
reference to a sample utility.
>>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.
The whole point of this/these articles is that people aren't particularly
interested in using Ada for various reasons. We need to try to make them aware
that, whatever they're doing now in whatever language they're using, it is
highly likely that they could be doing it in Ada, and taking advantage of Ada's
features in the process. For example it is certainly easier (IMO), and probably
more reliable, to use Ada's tasks and rendezvous to implement inter-process
communication than it is to use fork() and socketpair()!
>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
>But i think you -have- to ensure that the people are interested in
>the program that was written, not in the language per se.
I agree. Too many articles in the professional journals I read are based on
example from industries I know nothing about, and often very theoretical. A
sample program that would be suitable for such an article would need to be
something that someone can download and use on their PC. For example, a Windows
based FTP client (something like WS-FTP - that can't be too complicated :-)
written entirely in Ada. Has anyone done that?