Re: What is wrong with Ada?

["jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

On Apr 21, 6:56 am, AJAskey <Aske...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most has been hit in other's posts, but here is my take:
>
> I've used Ada since 1993.  It is the best language for developing real-
> time and simulation apps I've found.  Ada compilers have never been
> freely available to the masses.  In the 90s, GNAT was available but
> there was no internet to grab it and go.  It could have been
> downloaded and was available in CD form.  But no one who didn't
> already know about it would use it.  Today anyone can grab a free
> version of Java or C++ and be developing in an hour.  There are many
> other internet/scripting languages available for free.  There are free
> tools everywhere.  There is free support available in groups (such as
> this).
>

I do not know which planet you live on. I started downloading GNAT
in 1994 and have been using it on my home machine since then.
The internet was available to large parts of the world in the 1990's.
For part of that time you needed to use a dial-up connection, but
availability did exist.

> In 1998 the DoD decide to stop supporting Ada.  It is still alive (I
> use it today) but finding and trying tools is a complete pain in the
> butt.  Adacore and Aonix require forms to be filled out for a trial.

What is the procedure for obtaining tools for other languages?
Can you obtain trial version of JUnit without filling out some form?
Can you obtain trial versions of any Microsoft product at all?

> I needed to get approval/money/signatures within my company just to
> try the software.  Then I needed to schedule time to try the software
> (I still have not found the time to try Aonix with Eclipse).  Then I
> need to provide evidence I uninstalled the software or my company will
> be charged.  I think the Ada vendors underestimate the effort required
> by companies to just evaluate their product.
>
> >From a marketing perspective, Ada vendors make it nearly impossible
>
> for a company to buy their product vs. Java and C++ vendors who
> provide no barriers to entry.  Because of this, no significant
> contracts I see coming out of the DoD even want to consider Ada.  The
> reluctance for Ada at the corporate level (at least in DoD and other
> similar agencies) has nothing to do with the quality of the products
> or even the cost.  The reluctance is based on a repeated history
> (anecdote after anecdote) of requests for time/money to evaluate an
> Ada tool.  Every department/project that wants to use Ada must go
> through this.  Most just ignore the Ada option the other options are
> well understood and easy to evaluate.  Everyone in the product
> development business can see this and ignores Ada as a long term
> solution to big projects.  I would guess that the only buyers of Ada
> compilers are those with legacy projects who are moving away for
> Rational Ada because IBM does not support that well anymore.

This is a rather strange posting. Most large companies I know of
have little reluctance buying additional licenses for a product
already
shown to be effective in a different project or department. A contract
for one project puts the vendor on the approved vendor list. It is not
difficult to buy products from approved vendors.

Jim Rogers