> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Obry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:14 AM
> To: Kester, Rush W.; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Ada Productivity Data (was RE: Again, Ada is not an
> option.....)
>
> Rush,
>
> > I happen to agree with your statements that Ada productivity is
> > equal or better than C++ (after a learning curve) and Ada
> > maintenance MUCH easier.  But such statements can easily be
> > dismissed as unsubstantiated.
>
> As "C++ is equal or better than Ada" can easily be dismissed as
> unsubstantiated :)
>
> I agree with you, but I've seen a lot of time that for chosing
> C++ you don't have to give data and facts that it is ok for the
> project, but for Ada you must ! The choice is really biased :)
>
> Pascal.

Point well made.  However, I'm not sure if the hard data is actually
required by all programmers, or just maticulous software ENGINEERS
who use Ada!  :-)

I guess my experience is that all the data in the world won't
convince someone who's made up their mind.  However, if the person
in the next cubicle says "Wow this new widget is great!  You gotta
try it."  OR enough trade magazines says "Use of this widget is
growing and it's going to be even more popular in the future." the
battle is almost won.  At this point, either enough effort is
put into making these statements come true or people who try it
find it's "vaporware," loose interest, and the widget dies a
quiet death.

Ada's march toward "dominance in the world of programming" is
at the second step.  Many who tried Ada 83 early in its life,
found compilers and tools lacking.  If Ada weren't so good that
those who've tried on more than one project have continued to
advocate it, it would be dead.  IMO, we now have a better
language (Ada 95), reasonably priced compilers and tools,
generally better reliability, and an EXCELLENT chance to
grow beyond a niche language.

Keep up the great work Team Ada!

Rush Kester
Software Systems Engineer
charter member Team Ada