Re: How Ada is failing socially

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Larry Carroll]

And Ada is "failing" because C has been around a long time, so there's a much
larger pool of programmers, thus more people writing tools, & more people
as a market for those tools.  (Which reminds me, I haven't seen all that many 
good debuggers for Ada.)

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Larry Carroll]

Ada is failing (or not succeeding as fast as some other languages) because
compilers for it are much more expensive than those for other languages.  C
(& now C++) is so popular because C compilers were free or inexpensive during
the last half of the 70's & most of the 80's.  The same has been true of C++
-> C interpreters & now C++ compilers for the last few years.

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Chuck Shotton]

In article <SRCTRAN.91Jun24191603@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
> 
>      If Ada is so great, and the US government is spending so many billions
> on Ada software development, why is the marketplace for Ada tools and
> libraries non-existent?
>      I just received in the mail today the Summer '91 issue of "The Connection"
> a directory of software development tools and products distributed by
> "Programmers Connection (North Canton, OH) 800-336-1166)". They distribute
> pretty much any programming tool for PCs, Suns, Macs and Vaxes, though most of
> their products are for PCs.
>      The bulk of their products are language compilers, language tools and
> language libraries. In the Summer '91 issue, I made the following rough count
> of products by major languages:

[Specious arguments, stuff deleted]

If you've been around the industry for a while, you'll remember the history
of the Programmer's Connection. They started out life as a source for C-related
products for PC users and really haven't changed. Basing your entire argument
on the catalog from one vendor dedicated to PC-based C programmers is not
very convincing.

If you are interested, I can send you a list of over 200 vendors of Ada compilers
and related design and development tools. See how many C performance analyzers
you find in that list.

The (probable) reason why you don't see many small companies selling Ada-related
tools to large aerospace companies is that most small (PC-oriented) companies don't 
understand the development problems facing these large companies and are unable
to target their products to them. There ARE several small firms in the CASE
and engineering tool arena that successfully compete in the verticle aerospace
market. It IS interesting to note how many of the employees of these "small"
companies once worked for the large ones (and thus understand the problem)...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Shotton                 Internet:  cshotton@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu
                              UUCP:      ...!buster!brain!chuck
"Your silly quote here."      AppleLink: D1683       MacNet: shotton

How Ada is failing socially

[Gregory Aharonian]

     If Ada is so great, and the US government is spending so many billions
on Ada software development, why is the marketplace for Ada tools and
libraries non-existent?
     I just received in the mail today the Summer '91 issue of "The Connection"
a directory of software development tools and products distributed by
"Programmers Connection (North Canton, OH) 800-336-1166)". They distribute
pretty much any programming tool for PCs, Suns, Macs and Vaxes, though most of
their products are for PCs.
     The bulk of their products are language compilers, language tools and
language libraries. In the Summer '91 issue, I made the following rough count
of products by major languages:
			Ada          -       10
 			Assembly     -       32
			Basic        -       65
			C            -      289
			C++	     -      111
			Clipper      -       38
			Cobol        -       15
			Fortran      -       53
			Modula-2     -       11
			Pascal       -       56

By product, I counted either software tools (such as metric analyzers) or
libraries of source code (such as windowing libraries). I made similar
counts in programming magazines (Journal of Object Oriented Programming,
Computer Language, and Dr. Dobb's Jounral, and got similar relationships).

For some reason, the software market does not think that there is much money
to be made with Ada products, and probably for reasons that have nothing to
do with the technical efficiency of the language.

This scarcity of Ada products has some serious side effects - the apparent
small demand of any Ada products pushes up the price of those Ada tools that
are marketed. Companies entering new software development projects are going
to lean towards those languages for which there are many tools and companies
offering projects, even if the language is lower in quality (i.e. I might not
think C or C++ is perfect, but I do like the wide variety of tools available).
Companies developing new software tools are going to lean towards those
languages where it is clear that money can be made.

For all of these side effects, the ratio of C/C+ products to Ada products,
being great now, and probably greater in the future, will be a strong
deterrent to the acceptance of Ada, no matter how convincingly one argues
that Ada is a better language.

What makes this table weirder is that the number of Ada products should at
least match the number of Pascal libraries, since a lot of the Pascal
libraries could be run through R&R Pastran Pascal-to-Ada converter. Since
Programmers Connection makes it fairly easy to include new products in their
directory, and accept a variety of packaging conditions for projects, it
is strange that so few (i.e. zero) Pascal library companies are not even
bothering to provide Ada versions.

For some reason, something about the DoD and large defense contractors makes
it hard for small companies to develop and market new software products. As
long as this condition remains so (and as long as this problem continues to
experience the apathy of everyone from AJPO down to the lowly Ada software
engineer), Ada will remain a cult, niche language, no matter how great the
language is (or will be with 9x improvements). It amazes me that no one in
the Ada community seems to be concerned that there are so few companies
that can survive making Ada tools and libraries, given the billion dollars
plus going into Ada software development.

It also doesn't help that in the multi-billion dollar commercial MIS world,
someone very big is sending a message that Ada has no role in their future
software engineering plans.

Gregory Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[rharwood]

In article <SRCTRAN.91Jun24191603@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com
(Gregory Aharonian) writes:

> 
>      If Ada is so great, and the US government is spending so many billions
> on Ada software development, why is the marketplace for Ada tools and
> libraries non-existent?
>      I just received in the mail today the Summer '91 issue of "The Connection"
> a directory of software development tools and products distributed by
> "Programmers Connection (North Canton, OH) 800-336-1166)". They distribute
> pretty much any programming tool for PCs, Suns, Macs and Vaxes, though most of
> their products are for PCs.
>      The bulk of their products are language compilers, language tools and
> language libraries. In the Summer '91 issue, I made the following rough count
> of products by major languages:
> 			Ada          -       10
>  			Assembly     -       32
> 			Basic        -       65
> 			C            -      289
> 			C++	     -      111
> 			Clipper      -       38
> 			Cobol        -       15
> 			Fortran      -       53
> 			Modula-2     -       11
> 			Pascal       -       56
> 

I'd hardly consider Programmer's Connection a valid pulsebeat of international
software engineering tool usage.  "Most of their products are for PCs" makes
the bulk of your other religeous arguments suspect.  All your table shows ME is
that ANYONE can make a piece of software and call it a "C tool."

Look instead at a cross-section of job opportunities in computer programming. 
Yes, I concede C/C++ is the big winner.  But PASCAL programmers are NOT in
demand.  Oh, there is a demand for TURBO PASCAL programmers, but that's not the
same!  The PC programmer market is VERY different from the large-scale and
embedded system market.

Ray

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <1991Jun24.185845.1@east.pima.edu> rharwood@east.pima.edu writes:
 > In article <SRCTRAN.91Jun24191603@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com
 > (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
...
 > > 			Ada          -       10
...
 > > 			Cobol        -       15
...
 > 
...
 >                                 "Most of their products are for PCs" makes
 > the bulk of your other religeous arguments suspect.
This also explains why Cobol so scarce.  (Even nowadays most computer cycles
are burned with Cobol programs.)
--
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
dik@cwi.nl

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Keith Bierman fpgroup]

>...
> language libraries. In the Summer '91 issue, I made the following rough count
> of products by major languages:
> 			Ada          -       10
>  			Assembly     -       32
> 			Basic        -       65
> 			C            -      289
>...

I think it is overly simplistic to count the number of products ....
in a mature ecosystem, there is little competition within a given
niche. 

there are lots of other reasons to object (as pointed out, the sample
is PCs only, etc.)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith H. Bierman    keith.bierman@Sun.COM| khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM
SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33			 | (415 336 2648)   
    Mountain View, CA 94043

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[James E. Cardow]

srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:


>     If Ada is so great, and the US government is spending so many billions
>on Ada software development, why is the marketplace for Ada tools and
>libraries non-existent?
>			Ada          -       10
> 			Assembly     -       32
>			Basic        -       65
>			C            -      289
>			C++	     -      111
>			Clipper      -       38
>			Cobol        -       15
>			Fortran      -       53
>			Modula-2     -       11
>			Pascal       -       56

>It also doesn't help that in the multi-billion dollar commercial MIS world,
>someone very big is sending a message that Ada has no role in their future
>software engineering plans.

Interesting arguement.  I just have one question.  Given the volume of Cobol
in the world (good, bad, or whatever), what does your argument say about the
socialization of Cobol?  I would like to think the world is converting to 
other languages, but I'm afraid all that I can draw from you tables is that 
the market in the PC world, in terms of volume of unit sold (not dollars) is for
small end tools, especially in light of your last comment on the multi-billion
dollar commercial MIS world..


	Jim Cardow, Capt, USAF
	Air Force Institute of Technology
	Instructor in Software Engineering
	Professional Continuing Education Program

		E-mail:  jcardow@blackbird.afit.af.mil

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Warren Harrison]

In article <SRCTRAN.91Jun24191603@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>
>     I just received in the mail today the Summer '91 issue of "The Connection"
>a directory of software development tools and products distributed by
>"Programmers Connection (North Canton, OH) 800-336-1166)". They distribute
>pretty much any programming tool for PCs, Suns, Macs and Vaxes, though most of
>their products are for PCs.

Programmer's Connection has traditionally focused on the MS-DOS marketplace.
They have only recently started listing UNIX/VMS tools, and even then, mostly
from their MS-DOS tool suppliers. I don't think Ada is too popular in the
MS-DOS market (anybody out there doing significant Ada development under
MS-DOS?).

Another reason you'll find few Ada tools (so far) in the catalog is based
on pricing. The Connection (as well as most other such suppliers) insists on
approximately a 50% discount off the retail price - most vendors used to
doing direct sales, haven't set their prices to accomodate a 50% discount,
so they are understandably reluctant to use dealers. The rule of thumb
you have to use if you want this kind of distribution channel is figure
out what you need out of the product to make a profit, and double it so
you can quote a list price that will still make you a profit after a 50%
cut (you can sell it for less, but the *list price* has to be up there -
consider all the "special offers" Borland, Microsoft, etc. make - they
still make a profit at that price, but at 50% of that price, which is what
the distrbutors want, they go belly up in no time). As the Ada market
matures (actually as the companies learn the mass market game), we can
expect to see more Ada toolsets being listed in distributor catalogs.


==========================================================================
Warren Harrison                                          warren@cs.pdx.edu
Center for Software Quality Research                          503/725-3108
Portland State University/CMPS   

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Jim Showalter]

>     If Ada is so great, and the US government is spending so many billions
>on Ada software development, why is the marketplace for Ada tools and
>libraries non-existent?

Because nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public? (P.T.Barnum)

Because a great number of people have a knee-jerk reaction to anything
the DoD (or Big Government) ever does, facts be damned?

Because the DoD has been rather idiotic in its approach to broadening
acceptance and use of the language by not spending some sliver of those
billions of dollars to subsidize purchases of Ada compilers and tools by
schools, endowing chairs of software engineering at universities, etc etc etc?

>     The bulk of their products are language compilers, language tools and
>language libraries. In the Summer '91 issue, I made the following rough count
>of products by major languages:
>			Ada          -       10
> 			Assembly     -       32
>			Basic        -       65
>			C            -      289
>			C++	     -      111
>			Clipper      -       38
>			Cobol        -       15
>			Fortran      -       53
>			Modula-2     -       11
>			Pascal       -       56

One should always be careful to normalize data, lest one mistake an apple
for an orange.

First of all, Ada is generally still used more on large
projects than small ones, since it is on larger projects that its inherent
support for large-scale software engineering really shines over other
languages that lack such features (any language supports conditional
tests, but how many support macro-scale decomposition and enforcement
of interfaces?)--to quote P.J.Plauger, convener and general secretary
of the ANSI C standards committee: "Above 100,000 lines, you probably
should be writing in Ada.". Give this large-project focus, it is
not tremendously surprising to me that PC tools for Ada are few and
far between. One might well ask the counter-example: how many tools
for C++ for large projects are available? Last year the answer was: 0.

Secondly, there is no indication in the above counts as to the QUALITY
of the tools available.

Third, perhaps some of those other languages NEED more tools than Ada.
Lint and its enhancements certainly comes to mind...

>For some reason, the software market does not think that there is much money
>to be made with Ada products, and probably for reasons that have nothing to
>do with the technical efficiency of the language.

Again, the programming-in-the-SMALL software market isn't investing much
in Ada products. Check out the programming-in-the-large market sometime.

>Companies entering new software development projects are going
>to lean towards those languages for which there are many tools and companies
>offering products, even if the language is lower in quality (i.e. I might not
>think C or C++ is perfect, but I do like the wide variety of tools available).

AH! I've been just WAITING for someone to make this point for months, since
I have a few thoughts on this. The issue comes down to short-term vs long-
term gain. In the short term, the greater availability of tools for, say,
C++ (and the seemingly easier migration path from C to C++) might well lead
to a decision to use C++. But what are the LONG-term consequences of making
that decision? If an organization is truly committed to making substantial
improvements in its software development process, starting out with the
implicit objective of doing so without spending any money or making any
waves is pretty short-sighted. I know of many organizations that have tried to
upgrade their software development process, and the ones that were the most
successful were the ones that treated succeeding at it as a STRATEGIC corporate
objective, worthy of time, money, attention from all levels of management, and
even the pain of the transition. The ones who accomplished the least significant
results were the ones who invested in tools and training only begrudgingly,
clung to old standards and practices, refused to allow key people to spend
the TIME it takes to learn a new paradigm, etc etc etc.
-- 
*** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: Jim Showalter, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[Douglas Miller]

In article <SRCTRAN.91Jun24191603@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
> 
>      If Ada is so great, and the US government is spending so many billions
> on Ada software development, why is the marketplace for Ada tools and
> libraries non-existent?
>      I just received in the mail today the Summer '91 issue of "The Connection"
> a directory of software development tools and products distributed by
> "Programmers Connection (North Canton, OH) 800-336-1166)". They distribute
> pretty much any programming tool for PCs, Suns, Macs and Vaxes, though most of
> their products are for PCs.
>      The bulk of their products are language compilers, language tools and
> language libraries. In the Summer '91 issue, I made the following rough count
> of products by major languages:
> 			Ada          -       10
>  			Assembly     -       32
> 			Basic        -       65
> 			C            -      289
> 			C++	     -      111
> 			Clipper      -       38
> 			Cobol        -       15
> 			Fortran      -       53
> 			Modula-2     -       11
> 			Pascal       -       56
> 
> By product, I counted either software tools (such as metric analyzers) or
> libraries of source code (such as windowing libraries). I made similar
> counts in programming magazines (Journal of Object Oriented Programming,
> Computer Language, and Dr. Dobb's Jounral, and got similar relationships).
> 
> For some reason, the software market does not think that there is much money
> to be made with Ada products, and probably for reasons that have nothing to
> do with the technical efficiency of the language.

The key question here is how much software development is done with Ada,
compared with other languages (using an appropriate metric)?   You can't
deduce this from a straw-poll of numbers of unspecified, predominantly
PC-based "software tools" available.

On a related point, would it be true to say that Ada has built in features
that obviate the need for many auxiliary tools?  Comments anyone?

I would be more concerned about a lack of Ada compatible libraries, as one
of the objectives of Ada was to encourage a software component industry. 
Does anyone have information on relative availability of libraries for
different languages across the industry?

Re: How Ada is failing socially

[George C. Harrison, Norfolk State University]

In article <1991Jun25.175925.6730@csv.viccol.edu.au>, dougcc@csv.viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller) writes:
> In article <SRCTRAN.91Jun24191603@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>> 
>>      If Ada is so great, and the US government is spending so many billions
>> on Ada software development, why is the marketplace for Ada tools and
>> libraries non-existent?

Just maybe it doesn't need to be "existent" - there is so much standard Ada
support available that selling tools and libraries are almost REDUNDENT.

>>      I just received in the mail today the Summer '91 issue of "The 
>> Connection"  [ETC.]
>> [ETC.]

> On a related point, would it be true to say that Ada has built in features
> that obviate the need for many auxiliary tools?  Comments anyone?

Thanks for saying this.  IMHO Ada has many of the features that are available
in the C tools that are advertised.  

> I would be more concerned about a lack of Ada compatible libraries, as one
> of the objectives of Ada was to encourage a software component industry. 

Many Ada compilers either come with extensive libraries or these libraries
are available from via FTP or downloads.  Isn't it wonderful to work on a
STANDARD language??

[post flames here]

George C. Harrison, Professor of Computer Science
Norfolk State University, 2401 Corprew Avenue, Norfolk VA 23504
Internet:  g_harrison@vger.nsu.edu    Phone:  804-683-8654