TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional 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:
Reply To:
Date:
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:23:16 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Tucker Taft oAda person quoted and then wrote:

>From:  [log in to unmask] (Tucker Taft)
>Sender:    [log in to unmask] (Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95))
>Reply-to:  [log in to unmask] (Tucker Taft)
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Roger Racine wrote:
>> ...
>> This whole discussion does not say much for us Ada advocates.  It is very
>> difficult to sell Ada when the keeper of the Ada repository truly believes
>> it is not the right language to teach, because the tools are not up to his
>> standards.
>
>I think you are missing the point.  You can believe Ada is ideal for
>building safety-critical software, but believe it is not the best
>language for other things (e.g. teaching introductory computer science).
>Of course, you (and I) might disagree with Richard about
>where Ada is useful, but that does not mean that
>Richard Conn is not devoted to promoting Ada in the areas
>where he believes it is useful, and not where he does not believe it is
>the best solution.

And certainly there is no evidence of Richard Conn posting notices saying
"only those with a safety-critical application should use this material
on these web pages".

A discussion among Ada fans about where effort should be expended should
never be inappropriate unless you want the Ada community to behave as a
bigger bunch of "lemmings" than those who latch on to any other language
as a knee-jerk reaction.

Larry Kilgallen

ATOM RSS1 RSS2