I recommend collecting some of these and adding them to a FAQ list or FUD
Fighter file.  Dissemination of the list to non-Ada audiences at regular
intervals would be a goal.

Presidential Campaign rules - always react to any charge by the opposition
no matter how absurd.

No-Goto-Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Spannring [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:54 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: "Why Not Ada"
>
> It is interesting reading through some of the comments.  I think that
> Ada supporters would do good to study those answers.  These are the
> reasons (right or wrong) people don't use Ada.  If you want to
> increase Ada's use, you better find a way to address these issues.
>
>
>
>
>   AdrianG wrote:
>      My understanding is that Ada was designed, in part, to help keep
>      the programmer from making some kinds of mistakes.
>
> And keeping the programmer from making mistakes is a bad thing?
>
>
>   Hynman wrote:
>      Ada was developed by the government, for military
>      applications. Since it's scope was so specialized
>
> I've run into this before.  It is interesting that many people think
> Ada is too specialized.  I'm sure if people found out that one of the
> design goals of Ada was to eliminate the hundreds of specialized
> languages used at DOD people would complain that it was too
> generalized.
>
>
>   Skweetis wrote:
>      I don't use Ada because there aren't very many library bindings
>      for it.
>
> Finally a criticism that isn't completely false.
> Microsoft/Sun/SGI/etc has legions of programmers and are constantly
> defining new APIs.  Everyone else will always be one step behind.
>
>
>   underclocked wrote:
>      There are almost no professional opportunities for ADA
>      programmers,
>
> This is always a hard one to get around without a substantial pocket
> book.  Witness the mini-compact disk.  Nobody uses them because nobody
> produces inexpensive mini disk players.  Nobody produces inexpensive
> mini disk players because nobody uses them.
>
> In my own project, I'm having a hard time gaining management
> acceptance for Ada.  I've worked through all of the other fallacies
> about Ada, but I'm having a hard time convincing management that good
> Ada programmers are just as easy to get as good C++ programmers.
>
>
>   ader wrote:
>      Anyway, the only programming projects I really enjoyed were the C
>      ones
>
> Many people enjoy the arcane.  It makes people proud of themselves
> when they track down a problem on their own.  On the other hand, Ada
> compilers do nothing but criticize.  The compiler is constantly
> saying, "Your code is wrong."  People don't like criticism.  They'd
> much rather have compiler that says, "Yes, your code is wonderful."
> Later on they even get the self-esteem boost when they track down
> the bugs.  For most people finding and fixing bugs is a self-esteem
> boosting process.  Ada limits that indulgence.
>
>
>   Arrogant-Bastard wrote:
>      specifically the design-by-committee approach
>
> It is a common perception that Ada was designed by committee and is
> therefore bad.  This is just an example of how people make up their
> minds first and justify their opinions later.  Facts don't matter to
> people, only opinion matters.
>
>
>
>
> Alex Otier writes:
>  > The question was sent to Slashdot over the weekend, the URL is here
>  >
>  > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/06/1435238
>  >
>  > --
>  > Alex Otier
>
>
> --
> =======================================================================
>  Life is short.                  | Craig Spannring
>       Bike hard, ski fast.       | [log in to unmask]
>  --------------------------------+------------------------------------
>   When all you've got is Perl, everything feels like a smashed thumb
> =======================================================================