Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Leonard Vanek]

I could not resist pointing this comment out to the readers of comp.lang.ada.
It seems that the (lack of) credibility of Ada(tm) is simply taken for
granted in some circles.

In article <7197@think.UUCP> barmar@godot.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:

>I agree with the original poster, the programs (but not the
>algorithms) in Knuth are useless.
          ...
>									If he really wants to include
>programs, but doesn't want people to simply copy them, he could write
>them in pseudocode or Ada(tm).


Len Vanek
{utzoo mnetor}!dciem!array!len
Array Systems Computing
Toronto

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Kent Paul Dolan]

In article <524@array.UUCP> len@array.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) writes:
>I could not resist pointing this comment out to the readers of comp.lang.ada.
>It seems that the (lack of) credibility of Ada(tm) is simply taken for
>granted in some circles.
>
>In article <7197@think.UUCP> barmar@godot.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
>writes:
>
>>I agree with the original poster, the programs (but not the
>>algorithms) in Knuth are useless.
>          ...
>>				If he really wants to include
>>programs, but doesn't want people to simply copy them, he could write
>>them in pseudocode or Ada(tm).


I think (or maybe "For me") this is less a problem with Ada's
credibility, than with the availability of compilers for the casual
user.  The cheapest validated personal computer Ada compiler still
porks in above $1000, last I heard.  (I've given up waiting, and
ordered a Modula 2 compiler for personal use, $200 list.)  So, code
written in Ada might as well be pseudocode, for all most of us care
for our own use.  I still use Ada in the mainframe to which I have
access, as, I'm sure, do most readers of this group, but that does zip
for me in picking a language to teach my kids (after Logo, the _only_
first language for kids), or to use to write spiffy toys for the fun
of it.

DOD could save grunches of training costs downstream by sponsoring
high quality, validated, PUBLIC DOMAIN Ada(tm) compilers for the
existing suitable home computers now.  The Mac, the PC-AT and clones,
the Amiga 500/1000/2000, and the Atari come to mind as likely targets
for such an effort.  This would probably be a direct 100 or 1000 to 1
benefit to cost ratio in terms of DOD and other government training
money saved by having folks train themselves in Ada, and would aid the
entire national software productivity picture by vastly upgrading the
use of a maintainable, software engineering oriented language
nationwide, as a no added cost side benefit.

At the rate things are going, it might be 5 years before a validated
Ada compiler priced for the home user is available.  That is just five
more years of DOD funding essentially all Ada training.

The excessive (better, not sensitive to company size) cost of
validation probably prevents a lot of small companies from considering
making a splash in the Ada compiler pool.  (The 20 man years or so of
high priced talent required doesn't help a lot, either, of course.)

[Am I shouting loud enough, AJPO?  NASA?  I tend to get hoarse, and
give up in despair, if I have to do this kind of stuff for long.]

Kent, the man from xanth.

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Marc Gibian SUD x 3393]

I can not remain silent after reading the referenced posting.  As a member of
the corporate world attempting to use ADA for one of its designated purposes,
embedded military systems, a validated ADA compiler for home computers seems
a useless piece of software.  ADA was not designed to allow the development
of inexpensive compilers.  It was designed (for better or for worse) for 
military software, usually very large software systems, where the cost of
the compiler is a very small part of the overall budget.  There are certainly
lots of things to fault in ADA, but this is not one.


-- 

Marc S. Gibian
Senior Software Engineer
SSL, Raytheon 
phone: (617) 440-3393
mail:  gibian@turbo.ray.com
   or  gibian@sud.ray.com

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Doug Bryan]

oh come now, an IBM PC is no longer a "home" computer.  if it were, IBM
would have never ventured into the PC market.  Also, there is nothing
about military software that makes it any harder or easier to implement
than many, many other kinds of software.  

Ada is just a tool.  if it helps you do your job, use it.

doug
-------

Free Ada(tm) compilers (was: lots of unrelated stuff)

[Kent Paul Dolan]

In article <194@turbo.RAY.COM> gibian@turbo.RAY.COM (Marc Gibian SUD x 3393) writes:
>I can not remain silent after reading the referenced posting.  As a member of
>the corporate world attempting to use ADA for one of its designated purposes,
>embedded military systems, a validated ADA compiler for home computers seems
>a useless piece of software.  ADA was not designed to allow the development
>of inexpensive compilers.  It was designed (for better or for worse) for 
>military software, usually very large software systems, where the cost of
>the compiler is a very small part of the overall budget.  There are certainly
>lots of things to fault in ADA, but this is not one.
>
>Marc S. Gibian

[PLEASE, the lady's name is NOT upper case, and IS trademarked:  "Ada(tm)".]

As the POSTER of the referenced posting, I was simply responding to
statements, by a DOD (AJPO) Brigadier General at an Ada Education
conference in Hampton, Virginia, about 1984, and by the lady managing
software reliability for NASA for the space station at an ODU CS
department seminar in 1986, that it was becoming extremely difficult
to meet staffing expectations or to budget training costs for Ada
programmers, because there simply weren't enough of us around.  My
point, in my posting, was that there would be lots of experienced Ada
programmers, just like there are now lots of experienced BASIC
(yeech!) programmers, if Ada came free with the hardware.  Considering
the dollar figures being bruited around at these two meetings, it is
my conviction that DOD could cost effectively create and GIVE AWAY
compilers for home computers, just to increase the pool of experienced
Ada programmers.  It really doesn't matter whether all the home
compilers are ever used for is writing new versions of Pac Man, as
long as DOD gets sufficient good Ada programmers this way cheaper than
by its current methods.

The difficulty, of course, is finding a way, presuming my estimate is
correct, for buying and GIVING AWAY compilers within the current
Federal procurement regulations.  That kind of challenge would make a
very strong manager flinch!  It would be much easier to buy them for
DOD use for each targeted home machine (they are surely all in use by
DOD somewhere!) and then sponsor a friendly freedom of information act
suit to get tehm out to the public, but this would be too sneaky, I
suppose.  Sigh.

Kent, the man from xanth.

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Steven D. Litvintchouk]

Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.1 of Sun Aug  2 1987 on linus (berkeley-unix)



In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:

> DOD could save grunches of training costs downstream by sponsoring
> high quality, validated, PUBLIC DOMAIN Ada(tm) compilers for the
> existing suitable home computers now.  

The DoD already sponsored the development of two Ada compilers +
associated toolsets: the Army Ada Language System, and the Air Force
Ada Integrated Environment.  For various reasons, these were not
entirely successful, especially compared to the commercial efforts.

> The Mac, the PC-AT and clones,
> the Amiga 500/1000/2000, and the Atari come to mind as likely targets
> for such an effort.  This would probably be a direct 100 or 1000 to 1
> benefit to cost ratio in terms of DOD and other government training
> money saved by having folks train themselves in Ada, and would aid the
> entire national software productivity picture by vastly upgrading the
> use of a maintainable, software engineering oriented language
> nationwide, as a no added cost side benefit.

I agree wholeheartedly.  The Amiga is especially interesting because
of its multitasking exec built into hardware.  With multitasking
supported by message passing, the Amiga might provide a highly
efficient runtime environment for Ada.  Have any Ada compiler writers
looked at the Amiga either as a host or target?

> At the rate things are going, it might be 5 years before a validated
> Ada compiler priced for the home user is available.  That is just five
> more years of DOD funding essentially all Ada training.

Meridian is developing a compiler for the IBM PC, and it's logical to
assume that they or someone else will host/target the Mac.

> The excessive (better, not sensitive to company size) cost of
> validation probably prevents a lot of small companies from considering
> making a splash in the Ada compiler pool.  (The 20 man years or so of
> high priced talent required doesn't help a lot, either, of course.)

Perhaps another reason is that Ada compilers wouldn't compare
favorably with Turbo Pascal, Manx C, etc., because of:

   a.  Efficiency:  I can get a Modula-2 compiler for my Amiga that 
	generates code comparable in efficiency to C.  Also, I can
	run everything, libraries and all, off a single floppy.
	What Ada compilers can do a comparable job in compilation
	and runtime efficiency?  Will I be forced to buy a 50 megabyte
	hard disk to host the Ada libraries on my Amiga?

   b.  Target environment:  Again, the Modula-2 compiler for my Amiga
	provides a *full* language interface to the graphics routines, the
	windowing interface, the Amiga exec, the ROM routines, etc.
	Essentially I can program nearly anything in Modula-2 that
	I can program in C.
	But most Ada compilers don't provide such wide
	interfaces to the target machine.
	It's ridiculous for Alsys, say, to sell a PC compiler
	that takes over the whole machine, bypasses MS-DOS, and
	requires a special board.
	
There are two kinds of Ada users: those who program in Ada because the
DoD tells them to, and those who program in Ada because they genuinely
feel it's a superior programming language.  If you want to reach this
latter group of users, you must provide the same kinds of efficiency
and support facilities that people have come to expect from C, Turbo
Pascal, etc.  The excuse that it's OK that Ada compilers consume a lot
of resources because they're doing so much work to process *huge*
multiperson software wears a little thin in the PC world; I don't
write huge multiperson programs on my Amiga.


Steven Litvintchouk
MITRE Corporation
Burlington Road
Bedford, MA  01730

Fone:  (617)271-7753
ARPA:  sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa
UUCP:  ...{cbosgd,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sdl

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Arny B. Engelson]

In article <11466@linus.UUCP>, sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes:
> 
> In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
> 
> > DOD could save grunches of training costs downstream by sponsoring
> > high quality, validated, PUBLIC DOMAIN Ada(tm) compilers for the
> > existing suitable home computers now.  
> 
> > At the rate things are going, it might be 5 years before a validated
> > Ada compiler priced for the home user is available.  That is just five
> > more years of DOD funding essentially all Ada training.
> 
> Meridian is developing a compiler for the IBM PC, and it's logical to
> assume that they or someone else will host/target the Mac.
> 

I'm not in any way associated with Meridian Software Systems, but since I
have this month's Defence Science and Electronics in front of me, and it's
relevant to this discussion, this is what Meridian says in the ad they have
in this magazine:
			   (paraphrased)
Meridian's AdaVantage v2.0 has been validated on the IBM PC/XT, IBM PC/AT,
and the Zenith Z-248.  They list a whole bunch of Chapter 13 stuff that they
implemented.  The ad says the compiler runs with 640K, a hard disk, and DOS
v2.1 or higher.  The price is listed at $795 (in single quantities) and they
claim it compiles about 1000 lines/minute on an IBM PC/AT.

Additional info from the ad:  An AdaTraining compiler (aimed at the
educational folks) sells for $395, and an AdaStarter compiler for $129, which
they say incorporates all the features, but limits the number of library
units and lines per compilation unit.  Some DOS utility routine packages are
also available for $50, and they claim a source level debugger and Ada
editor will be available in the fall.

Seems to me like a short 5 years, doesn't it?

I've never seen these tools, but it sure sounds like they're heading in the
right direction.  Hopefully, we'll soon see a lot more Ada tools in this
price range.
As a courtesy (and so people don't contact me about it), here are the numbers
to contact them:  outside Calif: (800)221-2522,  inside: (714)380-9800.

Arny B. Engelson   {ihnp4|bonnie|clyde}!wayback!arny

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[spf]

In article <1191@wayback.UUCP> arny@wayback.UUCP (Arny B. Engelson) writes:
>I'm not in any way associated with Meridian Software Systems, but since I
>have this month's Defence Science and Electronics in front of me, and it's
>relevant to this discussion, this is what Meridian says in the ad they have
>in this magazine:
>			   (paraphrased)
>Meridian's AdaVantage v2.0 has been validated on the IBM PC/XT, IBM PC/AT,
>and the Zenith Z-248.  They list a whole bunch of Chapter 13 stuff that they
>implemented.  The ad says the compiler runs with 640K, a hard disk, and DOS
>v2.1 or higher.  The price is listed at $795 (in single quantities) and they
>claim it compiles about 1000 lines/minute on an IBM PC/AT.

I have the pre-validation version of the Meridian Ada compiler running
on my AT&T PC 6300.  While I've only thrown some casual programs at
it in my spare time, its performance and useability were pretty much
the same as my MS C and Pascal compilers.  Now that it's validated, I
think I'm supposed to get the validated version for $50, since I
bought a pre-V copy.  When I get time, I'll try to exercise it (and
my limited knowledge of Ada) more and report my experiences.

Peace, Steve Frysinger

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Kent Paul Dolan]

In article <1191@wayback.UUCP> arny@wayback.UUCP (Arny B. Engelson) writes:
>In article <11466@linus.UUCP>, sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes:
>> 
>> In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>> 
>> > DOD could save grunches of training costs downstream by sponsoring
>> > high quality, validated, PUBLIC DOMAIN Ada(tm) compilers for the
>> > existing suitable home computers now.  
>> 
>> > At the rate things are going, it might be 5 years before a validated
>> > Ada compiler priced for the home user is available.  That is just five
>> > more years of DOD funding essentially all Ada training.
>> 
>> Meridian is developing a compiler for the IBM PC, and it's logical to
>> assume that they or someone else will host/target the Mac.
>> 
>
>[...] this is what Meridian says [in an ad] (paraphrased):
>Meridian's AdaVantage v2.0 has been validated on the IBM PC/XT, IBM PC/AT,
>and the Zenith Z-248.  [...] The price is listed at $795 [...]
>An AdaTraining compiler (aimed at the educational folks) sells for $395,
>and an AdaStarter compiler for $129, which they say incorporates all the
>features, but limits the number of library units and lines per compilation
>unit. [...] Seems to me like a short 5 years, doesn't it?
>
>I've never seen these tools, but it sure sounds like they're heading in the
>right direction.  Hopefully, we'll soon see a lot more Ada tools in this
>price range.

>Arny B. Engelson   {ihnp4|bonnie|clyde}!wayback!arny

I was aware of the Meridian ad when I made the previous posting,
although it was conveyed to me as $795 PRE-validated, and a bit over
$1000 validated.  This is still way off the mark, as is a crippled
version (why bother?) at $139.  The price needs to get down to Turbo
Pascal's $49.95 introductory offer, to penetrate a market which is,
after all, not clamoring for Ada compilers in the $800-$1000 range.

Meridian's offering is a big improvement over the previous Alsys
offering in terms of price: a three or fourfold improvement, I think,
but it surely isn't going to put Ada(tm) in the hands of every school
kid in America.

On the other hand, DOD could probably buy the rights to Meridian's
product for well under $10,000,000, (getting the first Ada compiler
ever procured by DOD on  a firm, fixed price contract and delivered on
schedule!)  and use it to promulgate Ada throughout the land.

Just a dream of course.  When has the government ever done anything
rational?  ;-)  After all, they used to employ me!

Kent, the man from xanth.

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Mark Harris]

In article <2237@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>                                The price needs to get down to Turbo
>Pascal's $49.95 introductory offer, to penetrate a market which is,
>after all, not clamoring for Ada compilers in the $800-$1000 range.
>

Oddly enough, I read recently in PC Week that Borland is considering the
idea of an Ada compiler. 

Mark Harris

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[Roger Vossler]

In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
*The cheapest validated personal computer Ada compiler still
*porks in above $1000, last I heard.  (I've given up waiting, and
*ordered a Modula 2 compiler for personal use, $200 list.)  So, code
*written in Ada might as well be pseudocode, for all most of us care
*for our own use.

Although we are a large defense contractor and are using Ada, members of
my group have used Modula-2 very successfully on a number of efforts
internally. Modula-2 makes a very nice, small, cheap, fast, and powerful
subset of Ada, particularly, when we have to pay for it out of our own
pockets. 8-) Taxpayers may not be too concerned about how their money is
spent, but stockholders are less charitable.
-- 
-- Roger Vossler
   TRW, Bldg O2-1395, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
   BIX: rvossler      UseNet: dragon@trwspf.trw.com
   ATT: 213.535.2804          ....!sdcrdc!trwrb!trwspf!dragon

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

["LT Scott A. Norton, USN"]

With all the "my language is better than your language" noise going on,
I thought I should provide some perspective.  There is one overriding
concern in DoD's world of software embedded in weapon systems.

              MAINTENENCE

Consider that most DoD weapon systems have a life cycle of over 20 years,
and that that lifetime is full of changes.  ( Don't quote me on this
number, since I don't have my references handy, but I think that avionics
software has 50% of the code rewritten every 6 years. )

My previous assignment was as Tactical Data Systems Maintenance Officer on
a 20-year old guided missile cruiser.  The NTDS program was 25 years old,
since it was deployed on a previous class of ship.  In 25 years, just
imagine the changes that took place:

  Replacement of analog fire control systems by digital.

  Introduction of Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles.

  Interface with digital sonar.

  Automatic tracking radars and IFF systems.

  Replacement of electronic warfare systems.

  Support for the F-14 fighter, with a two-way data link and multiple
  intercept capability.

Also realize that in a 25-year lifecycle, many participants have a
hand in the software.  Components are produced and maintained by Navy
activities, contractors, and research labs.  Univac wrote one module,
which is maintained by NavSeaTechRep, St Paul; Johns Hopkins APL wrote
another, which was turned over to missileers to maintain.  The data
link was written by a contractor to conform to a joint Army-Navy-Air
Force standard, and then maintained by FCDSSA, a Navy activity.  So,
the program must stand on its own, without the benefit of corporate
knowledge or the "Lord High Fixer", who was there when it was
originally written.  Doug Bryan wrote
<12328308981.12.Bryan@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
>...  there is nothing about military software that makes it any
>harder or easier to implement than many, many other kinds of
>software.

The software that Ada was meant for, embeded in weapon systems, is
harder to implement than most, since it operates under strict
constraints of time, size, and correctness.  But most important,
its lifetime is as long as any COBOL banking application, and yet
as full of changes as any operating system.

LT Scott A. Norton, USN
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943-5018
4526P@NavPGS.BITNET

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[R.A. Agnew]

In article <8708241851.AA01472@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 4526P@NAVPGS.BITNET ("LT Scott A. Norton, USN") writes:
>With all the "my language is better than your language" noise going on,
>I thought I should provide some perspective.  There is one overriding
>concern in DoD's world of software embedded in weapon systems.
>
    Thanks, about time for some perspective. Perhaps people should know  what FCDSSA has to do
to maintain that code. They actully keep dozens of huge NTDS complete computer systems
at thier facility. When they want to support a particular ship they must pull out the installation
diagrams for the ship, actually configure (patch with wires)  the system for that ship,
and then try to maintain the software; but it seldom works because, besides the hundreds of
authorized documented changes, there are dozens of "Ship-alts" to the software
( like playing Pong with the target designator "hooks"). SCCS or RCS would have been usefull here. 

	Perhaps some people don't know that the life-cycle of DOD tactical software is 30 years.
10 years to insert into operation, 10 years usage, and 10 years to phase out. Perhaps they
don't know that it only cost $75 to $100 to design, code, debug, document and test one
line of HOL software but that it takes millions of dollars to maintain a small program
for thirty years. Of all the factors involved in the Life-Cycle-Cost (LCC) of a modern
system (say an avionics system with several hundred imbeded computers!) the software developement
and maintenance cost are by far the most dominant -- far greater than the hardware!!!!!

Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

["K.Keyte"]

With regards to the posting from Marc Gibion..

The mistake made in the posting was to assume that people were _critisising_
ADA for not being simple to implement on personal computers. This isn't the
point, and it is indeed a challenge for people interested in ADA to try to
obtain a verified ADA compiler for a PC.  The attitude in the posting was
typical of the arrogant nature of a lot of people in the defence industry
[apologies to those others in the defence industry who consider themselves
not arrogant :-) ]  who think that their ENOURMOUS power makes them unique
in some kind of way. Well tough! They haven't got the brainpower [not meant
to reflect on any individual] to match the huge enthusiast population and
the professional/semi-professional community. There WILL be an increasing
number of validated ADA compilers for home computers no matter what the
DoD do to the language. Maybe the array processors might be missing, but
the completeness of the language will be there. Personal Computers are
growing beyond comprehension, and I look forward to the day when VLSI
technology such as the Transputer will be put into practice in small machines
for general use; forcing many people to realise that THEY'VE MADE A BIG
MISTAKE.

So Militarists out there, cut out the rubbish, and stop trying to justify
wasting such huge amounts of money - you'll never manage it.