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: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:02:49 -0500
Reply-To: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (14 lines)
> > > Would it really be a bad thing if people who are not specifically
> > interested in Ada and would not attend an Ada specific panel
> > were attracted to your panel by it's new name? Get them there with
> > talk of the SPR's and then convince them that Ada will win if the
> > reviews are fair.
> >
> Yes, this sort of "subversive tactic" has some merit. BUt this
> misses Hal's main point - now that Ada is no longer _required_
> by DoD, but is now optional, have the Powers that Be at STC
> decided that Ada no longer merits the slightest attention?

Maybe the "Powers that Be at STC" are employing the same "subversive
tactic." (benefit of the doubt, innocent till proven guilty, etc.)  :-)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2