From: Gerd Arlitt <[log in to unmask]> > > > >Really, I don't mind the safety-critical, high-integrity angle. But it > > > >would be nice to develop grass-roots support for Ada among those who > > > >aren't necessarily in that domain. > > > > > > Safety-critical may be optional, but I have no interest in attracting > > > Ada advocates who are not interested in high-integrity. It is quite > > > possible to write lousy software in Ada, and the reputation of Ada is > > > best preserved by not attracting those who want to go in that direction. > > > > Are you _really_ saying that people like me should resign from this list > > and stop using Ada and leave you high and mighty people who do the > > really important work alone ? > > > > Jerry > > I also thought I might be wrong here in the future ! I am not a very active > member of this list but a regular reader of it. > > I just got the feeling that I might have supported the wrong language since > 1983. I do not hope that Larry Kilgallen's view will become the position of > the Ada community. I work in the field of production control - (buisness > processes, planning, simulation etc.) and I love sound engineering work. I think you guys are making Larry Kilgallen out to have said something he did not say! :-) He didn't say mission-critical or anything should be regarded as exclusive in a bad way. He said "high-integrity", which just means "not sucking". So he's saoying that he's not bending over backwards to appease people who don't care if software sucks. If you care about not putting out crap, then presumably your cooperation is valued :-) :-) It may be an elite, but it's very open. Anyone can join. :-) > The area I am concerned with is not an easy field for Ada promotion but I > think that it is worthwile to work on it. > > If I was a manager of a manufacturing company I would be concerned with > problems like ... > > - how can I avoid that I have to replace my Business/Production Control > System every 5 to 10 years, pay hundreds of thousands of <whatever currency> > and thereby risking the survival of my company ? > > - how can I adjust flexibly and "safely" my companies software to the future > needs ? > > - how can I close the gap between my business oriented systems and the > technical systems I am using. > > - how can I raise cost-effectively the quality of the software I am using ? > (my customers ask me for a zero fault production process for the items they > buy from me) > > - how can I make my business systems more event driven ? It sounds to me like you're saying that you *are* interested in high-integrity. Besides, he didn't say those not interested in high integrity should go jump off a bridge or anything, just that he doesn't care about attracting them. > So instead of telling those managers that our technology is superior to what > they need and that they are only a disturbing factor we should help them to > improve in fulfilling their needs in a better way then they are used to. > > If we think we cannot/should not help them then indeed I missed the point > since 1983 and I am wrong here. I think you are right about Ada and wrong about Larry K.'s post... Best Regards Mark Lundquist (as usual I don't represent Rational, blah blah blah).