Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Agreed but they have had significant success with ADA in very large systems development. I don't know what they poured into it, but at the time, the systems they were attempting to build called for very careful code management and integration. Loose coupling wasn't the right answer there as it can be here. They did not box themselves in. A procurement officer could always waive the requirement and many did. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] The politics of Ada are worth keeping in mind in this story, however. The Pentagon poured huge (some would say unseemly) amounts of money into the project, largely because they had boxed themselves in. Ada's current success, as a minor niche player even after that investment, doesn't seem like a good target to aim for, frankly. Those resources will not be available for most XML work, nor will the results of such massive investments necessarily be available to the general public. Complexity in this locale is generally poisonous.
|
