TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:36:32 -0500
Reply-To:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
> > This is simply assuming -standard practice- ... in both cases
>
> If you consider large, requirements-driven, front-loaded, traditional
> projects as the baseline for Ada, I get to pick Microsoft as the
> baseline for C.  Now let's talk about risk, schedule slips, late
> deliveries, crashing software and products that the users hate.  :-)

MickeySnot does have one advantage over most Ada projects:  They don't
have outside customers to negotiate requirements with.  And if the
programmer codes something different than what he was expected to, the
usual response is not "Fix it" but "That's OK, it looks cool and the users
won't notice the inconvenience before buying it."

> > Don't say "The Ada people could have done it the same way as the C people."
> > That is not the way anyone is teaching them to do it.

C people are being taught things that make C popular, while making
software more expensive and less reliable.  I am sorry about the first
part, but I am NOT sorry that Ada folks are not being taught the last
part.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2