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: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:53:43 -0500
Reply-To: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (27 lines)
> > So what will they buy if you can say, "Check this out: it has nearly the
> > same features as that, but it never crashes!"
> > ??
>
> My point is NOT that an Ada product would meet resistance -- most
> customers would neither know nor care.
>
> My point is that the market is not demanding reliable software or
> maintenance of an existing software base.

And you are largely correct.  There are, however, two areas in which your
point is mitigated:

1. Not everyone is blind to reliability--or there wouldn't be so much
   Microsoft-bashing going on.

2. Some of those who prefer glitz to reliability will abandon Mickey$oft
   if you can have enough glitz to get their attention, then point out that
   your product doesn't crash every few days.

My point was the latter.  Find a manager who has that strategy and he/she
will be willing to look at Ada.

Also, you can't sell glitz in version five if you've piled on so many
(still unfixed) bugs in version one through four that you can't even
run a demo.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2