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
X-To:
"Hamilton, J. LTC EECS" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:21:01 -0700
In-Reply-To:
Your message of Sun, 29 Jun 97 22:01:44 EDT. <[log in to unmask]>
Comments:
RFC822 error: <W> CC field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained.
Reply-To:
Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
>I think you are right to be concerned about misinformation in journals
>such as Dr. Dobbs.  If
>someone will fax me a copy of the article, I will respond.  My fax
>number is (703) 681-2868.


DREW: I read Oliver Cole's earlier msg to imply that he would author a
reply for Dr. Dobbs' Journal.  In this situation, we again encounter
the delicate trade-off between an authoritative Gov't response (yours)
addressing some inaccuracies about the Govt's position and "tainting"
Ada with Gov't support (which for some, certainly not any of us, means
it must be "bad").  For the audience reading this journal, if we want
to effect any positive results for Ada, we need to play to their
preconceived notions and prejudices  --  not that I know perfectly
what they are, but I assume from what I read that they could hardly
be regarded as Ada fans or sympathetic to Ada; I might (correctly or
incorrectly) also infer that they don't care much what the Gov't says
or does, unless it happens to align with their own views (negative to
Ada in this case?).

You might want to collaborate with Oliver in preparing your replies so
that there are no inconsistencies between them, but I think this is
case where letters to the editor (or other forms of rebuttal) written
by MULTIPLE authors in "leadership" or authoritative positions from
clearly DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES (Gov't AND commercial vendors) would be
better than just one.  In fact, one more response from the "user" or
"professional" community would be even better -- I wonder who would be
their "leader."

        -- Hal  :-)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2