Re: Open Systems closed to Ada?

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!biosci!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-stat]

emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
: The U.S. DoD has chosen Ada as a matter of policy.  Its rationale for
: its decision is well-known (and you can disagree with it if you wish.)
: But there's a big difference between the DoD policy on the use of Ada
: and the mantra that I've experienced in the C community.  
: 
: Governments are *supposed* to make policy.  What I consider completely
: objectionable are the people within a technical community who take on
: the role of government/management and make the policy for them.  

As a counterpoint, I offer the following:

  The Chinese government has chosen Communism (or more correctly,
  totalitarian socialist oligarchy) as a matter of policy.  Its rationale
  for its decision is well-known (and you can disagree with it if you
  wish.)  But there is a big difference between the Chinese policy on
  the use of Communism and the chaos that I've experienced in a free-market
  economy.

  Governments are *supposed* to make policy.  What I consider completely
  objectionable are the people within that community who take on the role of
  government/management and try to make policy for them by public demonstration
  in a public square.

While Communism may be desireable in many respects (government provided
housing, health care, jobs, etc..), I do not like the additional baggage
(government mandate among others) that is carried along with it.  While
Ada is (personally) less objectionable than certain forms of government,
it does carry additional baggage that I do not want.

While I agree that it is within the U.S. government's rights to make
certain policy decisions, it doesn't mean that whatever decisions are
made are automatically Good Things.

: Maybe my experience in POSIX is different than the "real workd".  But
: I tell you this:  I've met very few C programmers who have any
: experience with languages significantly different than C (FORTRAN is,
: after all, a similar language.  Lisp, Smalltalk, SNOBOL, COBOL and Ada
: represent different paradigms.)  Even those who profess to like C++
: think its greatest feature is backwards compatability with C.
: Conversly, most Ada programmers (that I've met, and i know a LOT of
: Ada people) are familiar with several languages (almost all of them
: know C), and are able to understand the various features of different
: languages.  

It is truely a shame that there are programmers who only know one computer
language.  (I've also brought up this point in this group.)  For the sake
of comparison, how many natural languages have you bothered to learn?
(This is a rhetorical question.)

My opinion is that the first language that a programmer should learn is
some form of assembler.  Without this basic knowledge it is like learning
algebra without knowing how to do the four basic operations because you've
used a calculator all of your school days.  To forstall the obvious response,
learning electronics would be equivalent to knowing the three-page proof
that "1 = 1".  (I have more than necessary knowledge of the subject, but
others can just take it for granted that it "works as documented".)

: The "State religion" metaphor is interesting.  You can well consider
: Ada to be the 'state religion' for the U.S. DoD, but there's no
: requirement to use Ada outside of the DoD (which is the span of the
: Congressional mandate. No one has told HHS, or Agriculture or Commerce
: or Justice to use Ada...)
: ...
: If Ada represents the state religion, it does so in a general society
: of religions tolerance.  I prefer this to the "fundamentalism" that
: runs rampant in the C community.  It's easy to leave the state church
: and pray to other languages, WHEN YOU HAVE THE CHOICE.

Leaving the organizations of origin of the two major contenders (DoD and
AT&T), how is the devotions to the languages (Ada and C/C++)?  This needn't
be hashed out here but can be discussed in the Usenet thread "Financial
Statistics for Ada and C/C++" started by an Ada devotee.

: p.s.  There are several people who attended Tri-Ada who are under no
: compunction to use Ada.  One that comes to mind is the guy from Cutler
: Medical Instruments ....
: 
: Also, how do people explain Boeing's decision to use Ada for the 777
: and other commercial avionics programs?  If Ada is so dangerous or
: inefficienty, Boeing, which has a reputation for quality commercial
: airliners, could have chosen C or some other such language.  ...

I've never seen any claims that Ada is dangerous.  I do agree that it is
less efficient than C/C++.  However, this is also a point on which we will
never agree.

Nevertheless, you have been, inadvertantly, making my point for dropping The
Mandate.  (I know, we won't agree on this either.)  However, you have made
my point for freedom in language choice.  There are those outside the DoD
that use Ada without The Mandate, and those inside the DoD which don't use
Ada despite The Mandate.  Any opinions to the contrary don't face reality.

And breland@cobweb.mcc.com (Mark Breland) writes:
: 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...)

If you can claim "unfair" for me misunderstanding his answer, then I can
certainly claim "unfair" for him misunderstanding my question.  :-)
However, you should not make unsubstantiated conjecture on subjects like
this.  "Lack of support within a language's semantics" is mostly an
excuse for "lack of knowledge".  I have personally interfaced several foreign
languages with C as the caller and the callee.

The type of obvious support that you want is available in C++.

: ....  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.

Agreed.  But Ada and C++ have been growing together in capabilities
Remember when the Ada community thought that "object orientedness" was a
Bad Thing?  Now that it will be available in Ada 9X, it is a Good Thing
and the previously held opinion will forever be denied.  Similar behavior
will also be evident in other communities as well.  However, I have always
liked a few things about Ada, but I don't like the baggage that comes
along with it.

Ada and C/C++ are different philosophies that will not grow together.

: 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.

Be careful about stereotypes.  I and the person sitting right next to me now
both happen to be government contractors who have programmed together before
(in C).  We both "prefer structure, discipline, order, and consistency", but
our prefered language happens to be C++.  (I happen to be using Ada in this
current project, but he uses C++.)  This is therefore not a valid
generalization.

As for statistics: There are lies, statistics, and studies.  I happen to
have a study in front of me right now titled "Ada and C++ Business Case
Analysis, July 1991".  (This is the actual study and not the summary.)
I have read it.  The best way to summarize this study is to use a quote
from "Dinosaurs", "What would you like this study to conclude Sir?"

			-=:[ VAL ]:=-
--
|================== #include <disclaimer.h> ==================///=============|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind" (tm) Commodore /// Weber State  |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us"(tm) Apple \\\///   University  |
|== "I think, therefore I AMiga" -- val@csulx.weber.edu ==\///= Ogden UT USA =|