TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced 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:
David Weller <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:49:28 -0600
Reply-To:
David Weller <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
I took a little time out from my busy schedule (which INCLUDES working
on the Booch COmponents...I haven't forgotten about them, I have a few
final snags and then you will see a release...Real Soon Now :-) to
look at the products in the Ada Advocacy package that Rick announced.

Here's a VERY terse review on the directories...

Colbert 1 and 3: Dated material, but some parts are relevant

Colbert 2: I strongly urge this package be removed.  It compares the
'91 version of C++ to Ada 83.  While it's an interesting package
historically, it's hardly worthwhile material for advocacy issues.
Using this presentation as a case against C++ would only ensure that
Ada is forever banished from that place :-)  Honestly, the effort
needed to update this slide series would be better spent just creating
a new set of slides.  This is NOT a slam on Ed...his slides are very
good quality, and made good comparisons if the languages back then.  I
just don't feel it has a place in this advocacy package.

Engle 1:  Referenced to SEI study (Ada vs. C++, 1991) are
outdated...never forget that one suspicious slide out of one hundred
will sink all your advocacy efforts.  Be sure when you use this
material to verify the statistical data is accurate in today's
context.

Engle2: Good presentation

Masters 1:  This was a thorough job.  The presentation density is
high, but the collected data appears to be relatively current and
relevant to today's situation.

Mathis 1,2,3,4: All pretty much say same thing.  Probably could be
condensed into one presentation.

Mathis 5:  Good talk about myths and red herrings.  Good FAQ material.

NRC 1:  Doesn't say what we'd like it to say, but does give a
reasonable perspective on things. :-/


Again, keep in mind I'm not criticizing the hard work of the authors,
but merely warning those of us that may use these slides to watch out
for any "backfire" effects.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2