Judy.Bamberger@SEI.CMU.EDU (10/08/89)
This is being posted for a colleague. While the words are not mine specifically (I don't have such a wicked sense of humour; some would say I have no sense of humour at all!), I fully support their intent. Judy Bamberger PS - I would suggest that we all return to the original documents of Ada-dom, *-man (Strawman, Woodenman, Tinman, Ironman, Steelman) and re-read the Ada Rationale. This is *not* to say that any of these documents are or are not stellar documents. However, these ARE the documents that DO DEFINE the REQUIREMENTS for Ada. Mebbe once history is reviewed, we may be knowledgeable enough to comment. ------------------------------- In response to the 29 Sep 89 post by Bill Wolfe: > As a software engineer, I strongly believe in the Ada dream. > But there have been big problems associated with realizing > that dream. How about narcoleptic software engineers waking up from their dreams (maybe more nightmares or wet dreams) and facing the reality that Ada is not (and was not meant to be) the end-all of programming languages, let alone the holy grail of software engineering. > . . . Is the DoD *really* committed to making Ada the > primary vehicle of software engineering technology? Ada is only a programming language, and programming is an extemely small part of software engineering. > . . . However, it is extremely frustrating to see people > choosing C++ and Eiffel instead of Ada because of this > ten-year revision cycle The "ten-year revision cycle" has nothing to do with the choice. The languages are chosen because the support the needs.