The return of Ada95

[KMays@msn.com (Kenneth Mays)]

Hi,

I wanted to answer questions concerning Ada and Boeing - besides a 
few other things:

1. The Seattle Times "Can Computers Fly" article, June 1995-July 1995 
was the one. Boeing programmers had complaints on Ada and how C++ 
rivaled Ada programming. From what I read on the article (I do have 
it saved on disk), it looked like an Ada83 complaint. Ada95 was
standarized in Feb. 95 but I don't think the compilers were up to 
snuff back then. AdaIC is still compiling
validated Ada95 compilers!

2. Ada95 is a decent programming language, but it is a general 
purpose language. Also, it was originally designed for embedded 
systems. The problem with this is that C/C++ is also a good language. 
Talking with many programmers, you can write VERY tight code with 
C/C++ and play with pointers and registers (bit level) very easy. I'm 
sure you can find a way to do it in Ada95, but its concept wasn't 
designed for it. COBOL is good for businesses, RPG (Report Program 
Generator) is good for reports, C/C++ for systems software and 
machine code/assembly replacement, BASIC for algorithm development, 
and Ada95 for long maintenance support where C/C++ general-purpose 
maintenance is not cost-efficient.

3. Look at IBM. IBM still supports C, COBOL, and RPG. Around 1980, I 
started earning these programming languages and they are still good 
languages. Ada95 hasn't been solidified as you can't run out there 
and find a wonderful Ada95 development system (even though I'm trying 
to get Visual Ada95 for testing). I can buy Visual C++ 4.0 or Borland 
C++ 4.5/5.0, but try to get a decent Ada95 compiler and there is some 
trouble to be found. Even QuickBasic 4.5/MicroSoft BASIC Pro 
V7.0/Visual Basic are pretty standardized in their areas. Can you 
find an article in most popular magazines that spout off a great 
Ada95 compiler?!? Any advertisements from MicroSoft on Ada95 
packages? Hmmm, there is a lot to be said about this.

4. The Air Force is getting rid of Ada??? Well, I would think twice 
about that. Any business major would know that if your company spent 
millions on a development package, you will spend the money to 
maintain it (why reinvent a perfect wheel?). Personally, I would say 
that all future development is done in C++. Ada95 will fill in where 
it is needed. MicroSoft Basic Professional / QuickBasic 4.5 is able 
to handle most easy tasks so I wouldn't knock BASIC. Visual BASIC is 
great for GUI work. The concept is what is easy to maintain, what 
will get the job done, how much speed does the application need, and 
how much is it going to cost!!?!?

Boeing is heading toward C++ future development in their avionic 
systems. I'm sure they will support Ada95 if their programmers want 
to, but first lets find a industry-standarized Ada95 compiler that 
everybody can use. I mean, we like MicroSoft Excel (spreadsheet) and 
MicroSoft Word (wordprocesser). Hell, even MicroSoft Access 
(database) is taking over DBASE!!

Let me know you thoughts on Ada95 development.

Write to:
maysk@wg53.eglin.af.mil

Thanks,
Ken