Hi Jerry,

You and several other people have said that a language perceived as
great for safety critical applications won't even be considered for
non-safety critical applications.

Why is that?

Do you think there is a perception that there's a lot of extra
overhead or difficulty in using a "safety critical" language?

If we can identify the obstacle, it may be possible to add some kind
of bridging statement that will help people make the desired
connection that if Ada's good for safety critical applications it'll
be great  for conventional applications that have to be reliable
(which means virtually every application).

Per Dirk Craeynest's posting, he seems to have been able to
communicate the link between safety critical and reliable software to
a journalist.  Can this be communicated in a sentence or two?

Happy Holidays,

Jeff

-----------------------------
Jeff Burns, Director of Marketing
GrammaTech, Inc.
One Hopkins Place
Ithaca, NY  14850
ph: 607-273-7340
fax: 607-273-8752
e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
www:  http://www.grammatech.com
==============================

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry van Dijk <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: Choose Ada flyer


>>                  When your software has to fly...
>>                          Choose Ada.
>>
>> Ada is the language of the International Space Station, Boeing
jets,
>> world-wide Air Traffic Control, and the French TGV high-speed
train.
>
>etc.
>
>My first impression is: obviously a great language for safety
critical
>applications. We do not build safety critical applications, so... we
>stick to C++ (or JAVA, or...)
>
>Does anyone else get the same impression or is this just me again ?
>
>regards,
>Jerry.
>