From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,3e070dca458e63a6 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.66.82.202 with SMTP id k10mr1755215pay.0.1358672747280; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:05:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.87.165 with SMTP id az5mr3031054igb.1.1358672747103; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:05:47 -0800 (PST) Path: s9ni5515pbb.0!nntp.google.com!f6no16331799pbd.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:05:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6b3952b3-9491-4c34-8e1a-6cfdbe950ca7@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.108.119.223; posting-account=tXrPSAkAAAAFR3M1xqoK7TQdrNxOfPT0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.108.119.223 References: <2e2c2eb7-cc2a-4a23-9cad-2044c704c460@googlegroups.com> <6b3952b3-9491-4c34-8e1a-6cfdbe950ca7@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0781c1dd-bcac-4304-a9b5-7b1e7451ae3b@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: More Ganssle on Ada From: Micronian Coder Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 09:05:47 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-01-20T01:05:46-08:00 List-Id: When I read the article, I too felt very disappointed that Adacore gave the= impression that unless you do safety critical code, you don't need to cons= ider Ada, which is absolutely silly. If you want to avoid bugs in your soft= ware and have good maintainability, you should at least consider using Ada = to help(not guaranty!) you reach that goal. This is especially true for man= y who don't have the sophisticated environment that the article recommends,= such as small businesses, hobbyists, and students. Perhaps the message sho= uld have been "Ada is ideal for safety critical applications, but it's prop= erties can benefit other domains where the developer wants to avoid bugs in= their software and are concerned with maintainability."=20 On Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:29:30 PM UTC-8, Patrick wrote: > I am not trying to make comments about what projects Adacore or their cus= tomers are involved in. What I am infuriated about is how Adore is represen= ting the language as a whole. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Let's delve further into the comment about not using Ada for a telephone = application. What language comes to mind with such an application. Erlang. = Hold this thought..... >=20 >=20 >=20 > CouchDB's primary creator made a courageous decision to rewrite his c++ a= pplication in Erlang. Now imagine that Erickson made a statement earlier t= hat Erlang should not be used for databases applications. Would he still ha= ve had the confidence to try? >=20 >=20 >=20 > Now the fear, uncertainty and doubt(FUD) floating around with Erlang righ= t now is that it does not scale as advertised and it's concurrency model is= not so great. >=20 >=20 >=20 > I have no idea if this is true but let's just say there was a project man= ager that did and that he/she went out shopping for another language. They = would want a language that was had facilities for building high performance= , high reliability and massively concurrent applications, sound like a lang= uage we know ????? >=20 >=20 >=20 > Only they read that Adacore says Ada is not a good match for this so they= move on to the next language. >=20 >=20 >=20 > So when I started out with Ada about 14 months ago I had many assumptions= that have been corrected. I thought that since it's part of GCC that I cou= ld use it for embedded design and target all the chips GCC supports. Now I = understand how complex a job it is to write a runtime and even though I am = disappointed it can't really be used for embedded design(as in baremetal on= ARM) I forgave Adacore. They have a business to run and if writing runtime= s for lots of targets is not in their best interest, they can't do it. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Later on I discovered that they re-licensed a large number of libraries G= MGPL to GPL for non-paying customers. This makes it very hard for a small b= usiness to use them in a for profit applications and surely this was their = intention but again I forgave them, it must have been in their best interes= t. >=20 >=20 >=20 > However now that I have seen this article and can see them sawing at the = branch they are sitting on, I have no idea what the top brass is thinking. = It's very alarming.