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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Chad Bremmon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:17:22 -0500
Reply-To: Mike Kamrad <[log in to unmask]>
From: Mike Kamrad <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (28 lines)
At 09:44 PM 7/23/97 -0400, Chad Bremmon wrote:
>I have been watching the # of ada programmers thread. . .
>
>I feel there's a strong attitude that Ada is hard.  It's not!  It can be,
but it's not an absolute.
>
>Somehow we need to get this out of our "Ada marketing."
>
>If we were to only provide the constructs available in C or C++, we will
see that Ada is certainly as easy or easier.
>
>I have to quote Mike Feldman again
>"Work REAL hard to try to educate the managers.:)"
>
>Ada is not the hard part of programming large scale systems.  Large scale
systems are the hard part of programming large scale systems.  Ada, along
with software engineering, make programming large scale systems easier.
>
>Chad

Chad's point is well taken.  When I teach Ada, I attempt to show how to use
Ada in a very simple way to write simple applets.  I have my students
writing Ada applets within the first few hours.  The carryover from other
languages is useful in bootstrapping students onto Ada.  Then I precede to
show in layers how Ada systematically scales up in capability to handle
very large applications; this is something that other languages don't do
well.  It is a very unappreciate quality about Ada...mike

ATOM RSS1 RSS2