TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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]>
X-To: Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:02:56 -0800
Reply-To: Al Christians <[log in to unmask]>
From: Al Christians <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Trillium Resources Corporation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (22 lines)
As outlined in a long post yesterday,  Ada still has quite a few places
where it is not going to match VB or Delphi feature-for-feature.  This
is ok:  any person or group proclaiming the superiority of an obscure
language for all purposes would have low credibility. I think that this
is why the flyer was focused the way that it was.

But, not to despair,  weaknesses should be an asset in marketing against
entrenched opposition.  Because a smart sales pitch does not try to
persuade the target who has millions invested in a dozen other languages
that Ada is better than all of them for everything, it can more easily
convince that Ada is better than some of them for some things.

If I was going to try to promote Ada to the mainstream of development
organizations,  I would try to position it as the best language to use
for writing the most complex and highest-value components.  Ada doesn't
seem well positioned to emerge as a RAD or scripting language, but I
hope that Ada can deliver high value can gain some market share and
visibility as a component-writer's language.


Al

ATOM RSS1 RSS2