Re: Eiffel for DoD development?

[wilkinso@gdls.com (Robert M. Wilkinson)]

In article <379632$9to@starbase.neosoft.com>,
David Weller <dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>
>I find
>that those that are supporting Eiffel (actually, those that are
>challenging that status of Ada as the "one" langauge for the DoD) are
>not thinking through the ramifications of using multiple languages on
>multiple platforms for many different forms of applications.

I don't think the "mandate" is an issue of language choice.  The language
itself is actually a *very* minor concern when all the "ramifications" and
politics are concerned.


>As languages go, Ada is _the_ most reliable, portable, and general
>purpose language one can use.  That's no accident, either :-)

This statement is about as accurate as saying that a Corvette is *the*
most reliable and useful vehicle one can ever buy.  Maybe so for some
people, but I hardly think a farmer would agree.

Ada has its advantages, just like every other language, and it has its
disadvantages, just like every other language.  The question is its
suitability towards a particular problem.  As a refutation to one of your
earlier posts, Ada is probably *not* the ideal choice for report writing.
It is probably *not* the best language for implementing an operating
system.  But maybe it is the best language for other purposes.  It all
depends on the problem.  That's why there exists such a plethora of
languages.  If there was one solve-it-all language, everybody would be
using it.

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
  
Rob Wilkinson                                              wilkinso@gdls.com
____________________________________________________________________________