Re: Open Systems closed to Ada?

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!spool.mu.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!m ilano!cobweb.mcc.com!breland@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mark Breland)]

In article <1992Nov30.215944.17819@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@news.ccutah.edu (Val K
artchner) writes:
>emery@dr_no.aries.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>: 
>: >Which language is the "state religion" that bans all other religions from
>: >its state?  
>: 
>: C
>
>In case you were unaware of it, there is a mandate in the DoD that "all new
>software development shall be done in Ada" unless there is a compelling cost
>justifiable reason...

Unfair apples and oranges here, to me it seemed David was pointing out the
difficulties with or flat out lack of support provided within a language's
semantics for cooperative interfacing/binding to another foreign language.
This does not correlate with a customer mandating use of a particular
language such as Ada (or Jovial, or FORTRAN, or C, or Lisp, or Smalltalk...)

>: >Which language is simply the majority "religion" while not being 
>: >intolerant of others?  
>: 
>: none
>
>Are you aware of something called "The Ada Mandate"?

Make it plums and limes here, but see above...same point.  Key word in
the question is "language".

>: >Which one would you compare to the USA and which would you compare to Iran?
  
>: 
>: I've compare the C community to Iran.  
>
>Which community legislates compliance?

Now here we have a subtle shift because David introduces the C "community".
I feel there isn't much room for either the C or Ada communities to point
fingers, since both strive mightily to prove they can solve the world's
problems within their own realm.  Much contention is made by Ada proponents
that the Open Systems standards predominantly favor C applications.  A
simple reason for that...the C community discovered their increasingly
chaotic universe required some form of cooperative structure fast to
retain customer base.  Because of the Ada language's enforced structure
and coherency, the Ada community enjoyed the luxury of a somewhat more
ordered perspective.  What is NOT needed is an exponentially growing
pool of crybabies.  What IS needed is a colloborative effort from both
sides to capitalize on the advantages of _both_ language paradigms.

>: >Which one rules by choice and which one will only rule by fiat?
>: 
>: Many people choose to program in C.  Unfortunately for those of us who
>: don't, the C community has shown a significant intolerance for other
>: language paradigms.  One wonders how many people are now programming
>: in C because they have no other choice.
>
>I have spent my professional career in the defense community.  Of the other
>programmers that I personally know, only 25% prefer Ada over any other
>language.  I know of no programmers in the commercial sector who would
>prefer to program in Ada.

Think of C as a language which attracts free-wheeling, loosely-bound
developers.  Think of Ada as a language which attracts programmers who
prefer structure, discipline, order, and consistency.  Those traits
most dominant in a _human_ will drive them toward the language of their
personal choice.  As for statistics, I usually pay no attention to them
if they lack the backup of a quantifiable, definitive study.  Commercial
sector programmers may not even known what Ada can do because of the
industry's dismal record in spreading the word.

Mark A. Breland - Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC)
Ada Fault Tolerance                               | voice:    (512) 338-3509
3500 West Balcones Center Drive                   | FAX:      (512) 338-3900
Austin, Texas 78759-6509   USA                    | internet: breland@mcc.com