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:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:39:33 -0500
Reply-To:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (11 lines)
It just dawned on me why CNA might have said C vs. Ada was a "wash."
CNA's "customer" was trying to decide which of two or more fielded Army
systems to select as the basis for their system.  I guess in
_that_context_ the languages those systems were written in would be
insignificant compared to questions of methodology and functionality.

Similarly, in that context, the O.S. the systems are on would be evaluated
differently than for a new system.

Of course, I'm still speculating, so I could be way wrong.  :-)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2