[log in to unmask] (Matthew Heaney) quoted and then wrote:

>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>>  [log in to unmask] (Jerry van Dijk) quoted and then wrote:
>>
>> >> >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 ?
>>
>> Hmmm, I just don't understand what I said that might have given offense.
>> High-integrity to me means software that does what is needed for the
>> purpose
>> at hand, reliably, day in and day out.  If your interests are otherwise, I
>> doubt that you would be on this list.
>>
>> Larry Kilgallen
>
>The problem with your argument is that, it ignores that fact that a
>person will come to value high integrity software only by using a
>language the supports the paradigm.

Convincing someone they should desire high integrity software is a
separate
battle that convincing them that Ada is a good tool to achieve high
integrity
software.

Fighting a war on two fronts is the hard way to do it.

There are enough potential comrades who want high integrity software (by
any
name) but have trouble achieving it.  The current effort should
concentrate
on getting them to understand the qualities of Ada that facilitate
creation
of high integrity software.  Those who are convinced will become
advocates.

Larry Kilgallen