TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

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: Johnson Phillip E <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:33:34 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Johnson Phillip E <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
>   Skweetis wrote:
>      I don't use Ada because there aren't very many library bindings
>      for it.
>
> Finally a criticism that isn't completely false.
> Microsoft/Sun/SGI/etc has legions of programmers and are constantly
> defining new APIs.  Everyone else will always be one step behind.

Unfortunately, this is very true.  Building a system with COTS hardware
requires a fairly large resource expenditure on creating binding for the
included C/C++ libraries.  This is not just having to deal with new APIs
from Microsoft/Sun/
SGI/etc but with real world, everyday hardware.

>   Arrogant-Bastard wrote:
>      specifically the design-by-committee approach
>
> It is a common perception that Ada was designed by committee and is
> therefore bad.  This is just an example of how people make up their
> minds first and justify their opinions later.  Facts don't matter to
> people, only opinion matters.

I have always found this particularly funny when espoused by a C++ advocate.
The look on their face when I show them a copy of a report from the AT&T C++
language Committee is priceless.  They do not want to comment on C++
enhancements being designed by committee.

Phil Johnson

ATOM RSS1 RSS2