At 10:46 AM +0000 31/5/00, [log in to unmask] wrote: >Say we were to write articles, what would be the best subjects to focus on? > >I guess it would depend on the target audience, but say we were >writing articles >for a professional journal, you would assume that the reader would >have some (if >not significant) experience in programming using some language or other. > >There are a number of things we could write about, most of which have already >been done at some point or other e.g.: > >1) Dispelling the myths, e.g. Ada is... > a) huge (c.f. flexible) > b) complicated (c.f. reliable) > c) unwieldy (c.f. e.g. syntactically and semantically consistent) > d) slow (due to poor compiler development in the early days) > e) expensive (c.f.cost of GNAT!) I think that making this the purpose of the article is a waste of time. people don't want to be preached at from the pulpit of a self annointed expert. >2) Provide multi-language examples e.g. "I can do this in >C/C++/Java/Assembler, >how would I do it in Ada?". this presumes they are interested in doing it in Ada. >3) Point out how Ada can make things easier e.g.: > a) multi-tasking built in to the language > b) use of protected objects for mutual exclusion > c) representation and address clauses for easy hardware access > d) distributed programming. > >4) Current use of Ada, emphasising the non-military/aerospace use! > >Although no Ada article would be complete without it, I think it would be wise >to try not to go overboard on the reliability aspect. I believe >there is still a >view that reliable <=> dull! IMHO write a good system in Ada, and mention in passing throughout the article if it was quick to develop, the level of adaptability it has etc. But i think you -have- to ensure that the people are interested in the program that was written, not in the language per se. Dale