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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a0be06fbc0dd71f1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-hp2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The future of Ada is at risk From: Georg Bauhaus In-Reply-To: References: <20071229040639.f753f982.coolzone@it.dk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1199452391.7932.27.camel@K72> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:13:11 +0100 Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Jan 2008 14:13:13 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 3ed731ca.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=E6Hl]\TGHPKE4ZB2flKORA4IUK On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:45 +0100, Agyaras wrote: > > The GNU GNAT Compiler is the only Open Source compiler, and > > it lacks proper support and implementation on a variety of platforms. > I can confirm this. E.g. it is a major headache to get the GNAT compiler > working under Mac OS X. What do you think of http://www.macada.org/ ? What caused the headache? > AdaCore stopped distributing GNAT/GPS (GPL) for > the Mac. Huh? It is still there (the 2006 edition), and support for the later Intel based Macs is officially announced on the AdaCore supported platforms page. > There has never been a GNAT/GPS package for Solaris AFAIK. > etc.etc. Huh? Please, have a look. It is still there. And what exactly is the "etc.etc." to imply? > Ada and the Open Source community:- there are several problems. > > 1) Perception. Yes. > 2) Complexity. Yes, but I doubt that the standard mode of OSS projects' language choice is ever based on language complexity. The prove should be obvious. C is chosen, and is probably a little less comples than C++, chosen for OSS work, too. C has very complex issues; some of them are buried in required compiler documentation and machine idiosyncrasies. So what? I'd rather say that more permissive lax languages are preferred in non-.NET work, because they seem to support the perception that you can get by even in the long run. The translators will not remind you of typing errors, dubious constructs, etc. (Witness perlcritic.) > 3) The quick-and-dirty mentality. This with 1), Perception. Indeed, Ada on Rails (as opposed to GNAT on Rails) is not ready, although there are ingredients (in particular for GNAT on Rails). > 4) Ada limitations. Certain aspects of Ada are painfully clumsy. Yes. The Ada 9X notes explain some of the dilemma. > 5) Lack of libraries and frameworks. > she needs simple but powerful string handling, I don't see how simple but powerful string handling is missing with GNAT's SPITBOL support. You'd be forced to use UTF-8 String, yes, but consider what the scripting languages have to offer when it comes to UTF-8. Even the String packages are full of useful algorithms and data structures, even though there is no general character type in Ada. (Will the engineers ever get this right?) Cobol picture support adds to this. I've looked at the latest "most powerful regex engine" added to Ruby 1.9. And they want to tell the world that scripting languages are easy? I don't see how there is any more power in them than in SPITBOL patterns, and those are a lot easier to read. (The SNOBOL4/SPITBOL motto, "Don't use pattern matching" applies to scripting language embedded RE languages, and with more emphasis, IMHO.) > just to name a few. The catch-22 is that nobody will develop these until > there's strong demand for Ada-based s/w, and there won't be strong > demand until the libs are available. OK, but who created the demand for Ruby libraries so that there would be those who started it?