jj@cup.porthole.com (jj) (03/09/90)
PLEASE YOU WILL PARDON ME BECAUSE I AM A NEW USER AND THIS IS MY FIRST POST. FROM WHAT I HAVE READ IN THIS BBS IF YOU USE ADA YOUR PROGRAMS WILL NOT HAVE ANY BUGS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD THING. I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD USE ADA SO THEIR WILL NOT BE ANY MORE BUGS. PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO GET ADA FOR MY RADIO SHACK COLOR COMPUTER (I USED IT AS A TERMINAL TO TYPE THIS IN).
frankw@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Frank Wales) (03/10/90)
>FROM WHAT I HAVE READ IN THIS BBS IF >YOU USE ADA YOUR PROGRAMS WILL NOT >HAVE ANY BUGS. Is that you, Bill? I'd recognise those crayons anywhere. :-) -- Frank Wales, Guest of HP Corvallis, [frank@zen.co.uk||frankw@hpcvdq.cv.hp.com] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Road., LEEDS, England, LS9 8DB. (+1)-503-750-3086
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (03/12/90)
From article <19452@grebyn.com>, by ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden): > Object-oriented programming is the only thing which could possibly > help some of the giant projects which are now mandated to be done > in Ada. Ada doesn't have it now. Ada probably won't have it with > the 9x version, which will likely include mostly fixes for some of > the present bugs and woes, and given the speed of the process > involved, the 9x standard will probably be out in about a year, a > first compiler in four years, and first near-reasonable compilers > in seven or ten years. This probably says 14+ years for object- > oriented Ada. Regrettably for Mr. Holden, object-oriented Ada is available right now. Software Productivity Solutions has a product called Classic Ada which serves as a Smalltalk-based object-oriented preprocessor for Ada-language software developers. Another object-oriented approach along the lines of Zetalisp's Flavors (InnovAda) will soon be on the market as well. But Ted Holden will never let reality interfere with his point of view, as he has so repeatedly demonstrated. > Ada "gurus" are constantly talking about the advantage of Ada for > team projects, but here Sommerville/Morrison are making the point > that the do-everything language is so complex that the only team > likely to succeed at doing anything at all with it is the local > chapter of Mensa. Well, Ted, if you aren't bright enough to handle Ada, I suggest that you stay away from it. However, you should keep in mind that STANFINS-R has recently demonstrated that even COBOL programmers can be turned into effective Ada software engineers. Perhaps you should therefore see to it that you refrain from using any language more sophisticated than COBOL! Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu