Re: Are 'best' universities being targeted

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!seas.g wu.edu!mfeldman@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Feldman)]

In article <1993Aug10.180009.8441@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (
fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1993Aug10.020538.14104@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldma
n) writes:
>
[deleted]

>>You said it was OK to discuss Ada's role in all this. The thread started
>>with a remark that the "leading universities" aren't doing much Ada.
>>I opined that that didn't matter all that much; that it's quite OK
>>for someone to change the definition of "best universities" to 
>>"those that teach good software engineering, in particular with Ada."
>
>>This time, Robert, we are in violent agreement. Whew.
>
>But isn't this the same sort of 'triple-think' that leads people to
>question all the good things that can be said about Ada?  Simply
>redefine 'good' to mean 'Ada'?  How much credibility can praise for
>the language have if people see it as coming from that kind of
>mindset? 
>
Sorry, you didn't see the invisible smiley :-) I meant it ironically.

I hear ALL THE TIME that Ada cannot be any good because the "best"
universities aren't teaching it much. I even heard from a high USAF
official (oh, OK, it was Mosemann, himself) that he was really concerned
about Ada's image because the "best" universities don't teach it much.

I told him I didn't think that was terribly relevant, that if he wanted
to produce lots of good seniors for industry, he should take a look at
the "non-best" schools that _are_ teaching Ada, study their success in
other things like SE, and try to leverage it. He didn't get it.

>I agree that it really doesn't matter what students are being taught
>in, particularly, as long as they are learning principles of good
>software engineering.  I even agree that many of them aren't.
>However, I have to disagree with the idea that you can redefine 'good'
>in this way -- you have to look at what the 'good' schools are without
>regard for language and then look at language.
>
Of course.

Sorry, I misled you into thinking I was serious. I was only half serious.
I teach in a "non-best" (by many of the arbitrary measures) engineering
college, and besides it had been a long day.

Mike Feldman