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:
Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:00:33 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Tucker Taft wrote:

> Here is a possible replacement paragraph which tries to move
> beyond the safety-critical, to the business-critical.  Is
> it an improvement?
>
> -Tuck
>
> --------------
>
>                 When there is no room for error...
>                           Choose Ada.

TUCK:  I very much like this, probably more than anything else I've read
in this tread.  It avoids any of the feature-specific or
single-property-specific buzzwords in many recent msgs that allow
misinterpretation of converses (i.e., Ada's not good for anything except
this).  I doubt that anyone would admit their goal is to write code with
errors, but I surely won't mind turning them off to Ada if errors are
their goal or are even marginally acceptable.  I think part of Ada's
problem has been the over-hype in the 80's as Ada being good for
everything, and this slogan and most others suggested this week appear
to avoid that over-sell and get down to easy-to-demonstrate benefits of
Ada.   You know I have always liked the "high reliability" and "when
failure is not an option" phrases, and your new slogan subsumes them
nicely, IMO.   --hh

ATOM RSS1 RSS2