Re: Ada

[billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )]

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