The difference is that COBOL found a large user base - finance - that has
great need and deep pockets.  DoD has deep pockets but always goes for the
lowest bidder.  Many times S/W costs are not even considered until after the
winner gets the contract.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brashear, Phil [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:15 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: What's Ada's life expectancy?
>
> As for COBOL (related, but not quite on topic), members of the COBOL
> Standards Committee are talking about a revised test suite, and I'm told
> that several COBOL vendors are interested in third-party certification.
> That suggests that COBOL is still quite active.
>
> Phil
>
> Philip W. Brashear
> Software Quality Assurance
> EDS Corporation
> Voice:+1.937.237.4510
> FAX: +1.937.237.4660
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Feldman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What's Ada's life expectancy?
>
>
> Said Stephe,
> >
> > Other languages have well outlasted their predicted lifetimes; look at
> > COBOL. Ada Core Technologies is making money and growing; no reason to
> > think that will change.
> >
> > --
> > -- Stephe
> >
> I think Ed Colbert was, in his original post, referring to new starts.
> Obviously Ada will be around in "legacy" (sub-)systems for a long time
> to come.
>
> Yes, we discovered in the Y2K mess that there was a lot of COBOL out
> there. But those Y2K COBOL programmers were dragged out of retirement
> (and paid very well for a short time) to work on it. That doesn't say
> much about whether COBOL is really in active use, or whether there
> are any new starts to speak of. (I don't know whether there are -
> do you, Stephe?)
>
> OK, back to Ada. Is anyone aware of new starts that weren't committed
> to years ago? As you probably know, I try to keep abreast of this,
> and report it in
> http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html.
> I haven't seen anything in quite a while; OTOH I haven't done much
> active research on it recently.
>
> I have not had a tip on a substantive addition to this list in two
> years or so, maybe even longer. (The latest revision date is 6/22/02,
> but that was only to fix a couple of dead links.)
>
> Anyone have anything to offer?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike Feldman