Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:13:22 -0500
At 10:15 AM 12/15/98 -0500, Jeff Burns wrote:
>You and several other people have said that a language perceived as
>great for safety critical applications won't even be considered for
>non-safety critical applications.
>Why is that?
>Do you think there is a perception that there's a lot of extra
>overhead or difficulty in using a "safety critical" language?
Because the perception in the "commercial software" market is that time
to market is the critical factor. If you don't sell that, they won't buy.
>If we can identify the obstacle, it may be possible to add some kind
>of bridging statement that will help people make the desired
>connection that if Ada's good for safety critical applications it'll
>be great for conventional applications that have to be reliable
>(which means virtually every application).
Which is more critical to you, starting coding, or shipping working
software as soon as possible? When schedule is critical, use the best
langauge for critical software: Ada.
Actually, another selling tool (but not for everyone) would be to push
a rapid prototyping tool that allows you to transition easily to Ada.
Robert I. Eachus
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...