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
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
W. Wesley Groleau x4923
Date:
Mon, 15 May 2000 09:52:06 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
> >   Embedded Systems Programming should've
> > safeguarded against multiple voting.

Maybe they did.  They claimed that 50% Ada was bogus.  90% would certainly
be inaccurate, but 50% is almost believable.

And, as Ann pointed out, neither 50% nor 90% proves anyone voted twice.

> They were pretty naive.

In their blind devotion to C they are worse than naive.

I recently read one of their articles on "how to choose a language" for an
embedded project.  Basically, the algorithm was:

1. Put the choices on a list: Assembler, C, Java, other.

2. Reject 'other' without even naming it (them)

3. Reject Java because it's not ready for prime time.

4. List all the benefits of C over assembler.

5. Ask, "Do we really want to waste time with
   assembly language?"

6. Hope that no one notices that many of the benefits you listed
   are much greater than C in certain unpopular languages.

--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

ATOM RSS1 RSS2