> There is another side to this issue. Has no one heard the adage: "Better
> is the enemy of good enough"?

Yes; you're underscoring my point. The problem, though, is that "good
enough" is seldom defined. Suckiness tends to manifest itself most
in areas where requirements are least measurable or missing... hence
"good enough" because we can't show that it's not. Another adage is
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it;" both translate to "It's tolerable,
so leave it sucky."

> yes, the software would be better if everyone used Ada.  But to keep
> hearing everyone preaching only the one side might mean that a little
> perspective is needed.

This is part of what I was getting at. How do we promote Ada with this
perspective in mind?

> Do not condemn successful software just because it has bugs.  It would not
> be successful if it did not provide some service that the purchaser wants.

... at least to a degree where the sucky aspects can be overlooked or
tolerated, in exchange for that service.

C. Daniel Cooper ==========v=======================.
Adv Computing Technologist | All opinions are mine |
206-655-3519               | and may not represent |
[log in to unmask]  | those of my employer. |
The question is not "What is the answer?"; rather, |
the question is "What is the question?" --Poincare |