Re: Eiffel for DoD development?

[riehler@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Richard Riehle)]

In article <781960828joe.joe@jsnode.equinox.gen.nz> joe@jsnode.equinox.gen.nz (Joseph Skinner) writes:
>In article <377864$tv@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
>>In article <jws-1102941650060001@seeker.tiac.net>,
>>Jeffrey W. Stulin <jws@seeker.tiac.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <jws-1102940843050001@seeker.tiac.net> Jeffrey W. Stulin,
>>>> jws@seeker.tiac.net writes:


>>>> >What DOD should be doing is a compromise: keep a short list of accepted
>>>> >languages and let each development project choose the best language (from
>>>> >the list) for the job.
>>
>>Now, you list a language underneath it that provides a NON
>>overlapping set of functionality.  (Hint: Don't put Eiffel down)
>>(Another hint: There are answers, just damn few)
>

No one has yet provided an irrefutable argument that a properly implemented
Ada compiler, along with appropriate plaform-supporting packages, cannot be
used to solve the vast majority of real-life software problems that most
of us confront on a day-by-day basis.

If we can do the job in Ada, why would we want to create more confusion by
mixing in more languages.


For example, I sometimes enjoy the macaronic verse of Ezra Pound but it is
extraordinarily difficult to read with its mixture ofGreek, Latin, English,
Italian, and Chinese characters. I certainly would not advocate this kind
of writing for documentation anymore than I would encourage multiple
computer languages for software development.

Prove to me that Ada cannot do the job, and I will use an alternative.


Richard Riehle