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
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:52:06 -0500
Reply-To: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (33 lines)
> >   Embedded Systems Programming should've
> > safeguarded against multiple voting.

Maybe they did.  They claimed that 50% Ada was bogus.  90% would certainly
be inaccurate, but 50% is almost believable.

And, as Ann pointed out, neither 50% nor 90% proves anyone voted twice.

> They were pretty naive.

In their blind devotion to C they are worse than naive.

I recently read one of their articles on "how to choose a language" for an
embedded project.  Basically, the algorithm was:

1. Put the choices on a list: Assembler, C, Java, other.

2. Reject 'other' without even naming it (them)

3. Reject Java because it's not ready for prime time.

4. List all the benefits of C over assembler.

5. Ask, "Do we really want to waste time with
   assembly language?"

6. Hope that no one notices that many of the benefits you listed
   are much greater than C in certain unpopular languages.

Wes Groleau