Re: Ada advocacy

[Leo Brewin <leo.brewin@internode.on.net>]

Greetings,

I have just been reading some of the older posts in this discussion and came across the following objections to Ada (see quoted text below). Does anybody have any opinion on this? Is it correct? Is the original poster confusing the difference between a programming language and an operating system?

Cheers,
Leo

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:59:23 PM UTC+11, an...@att.net wrote:
> A reasons why people do not support Ada.
> 
> Microsoft has been using multi-threads since Windows 1.0 (DOS GUI addon)
> which was shipped in early 1985 and with OS/2 1.0 a hardware based 
> intrinsic multitasking OS in 1987. So, when Microsoft went into the 
> schools, people learned that Windows was a multi-threading operating 
> system. And now every Microsoft language and OS platforms support parallel.
> 
> But, Ada has always been "Concurrent" aka DOS or batch like programming. 
> Aka no multi-threads or parallel design.  Even in Ada 2012 (not adopted 
> yet), the parallel is not fully there only some simple multiple CPU 
> design structures. 
> 
> Now, today, no software customer want to use a language unless that language 
> fully support multi-threading and parallel designs. So, until the ARG fully 
> embraces a true multi-threads parallel design, Ada will stay a limited usage
> language.