Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!boulder!happy.colorado.edu!hsrender From: hsrender@happy.colorado.edu Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: <1991Apr8.101133.1@happy.colorado.edu> Date: 8 Apr 91 16:11:33 GMT References: <20106@alice.att.com> <1991Mar26.191259.14470@i88.isc.com> <27F4D4BE.716@tct.uucp> <1991Apr2.175756.12586@visix.com> <1574@acf5.NYU.EDU> Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 23 Nntp-Posting-Host: happy In article , jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: > Stubbornly clinging to languages and techniques with proven deficiencies > makes as much sense as a hardware engineer refusing to use those darned > newfangled VLSI chips, a mechanical engineer refusing to use those > scary new CAD systems, a construction firm refusing to use poured concrete > in place of bricks and plaster, etc. Just for my benefit, can you give me an idea of what the availability of cheap, portable Ada compilers is? One reason I gave up on attempts to do anything with it 6 years ago was that I couldn't find a good development system. Sure, Rational had efficient compilers even then, but they were priced out of the range of the average academic budget. Perhaps more schools would teach Ada (and thus create more Ada supporters) if the compilers were cheaper. BTW, I don't consider $3500/machine to be a cheap compiler, even if it is cheaper than some things on the market. I think such pricing strategies are what cause the failure of good language systems, such as Eiffel and the latest release of ParcPlace Smalltalk. Since we've moved somewhat far afield from the original topic, I recommend that any further discussions on this be moved to comp.lang.misc. hal.