Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Harry Koehnemann]

In article <1992Sep11.164402.7141@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael 
Feldman) writes:
>Five years ago or so, I was made to listen to a drumbeat of exhortation
>from various representatives of the Ada community, meaning DoD folks,
>their contractors, and the compiler houses alike. These prophets told me
>that no student who didn't know Ada would ever be able to get a job.

Interesting thing happened to me last week.  I went to the local eye
place to get a pair of contacts and while putting them on I got to
talking with the "eye guy".  Note this was not the doctor, rather
the guy behind the desk.  Anyways he asked me if I attended the
university, then what I studied, then what my research area was, then...

Anyways to make a long story short, we talked for a while.  This guy used
to be involved with Ada somewhere in the government, then worked for a
rather famous Ada compiler vendor (probably should remain nameless), but
was now helping me with my contacts.  He was older - 43 if I recall - but
knowing Ada sure wasn't helping him get a job (he'd been out of work in
his field for ~a year).


>Anyone who thinks that Ada is being held back chiefly by not supporting
>multiple inheritance is barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not Ada.
>The problem is us, folks.

Excellent point.  I'm sure that forest is around here somewhere, if
we could just take care of these damn trees.
--
Harry Koehnemann
koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu]

In <comp.lang.ada> obry@flash.bellcore.com (Pascal Obry) writes:
>
> ... so they chose C++ (yes, they think it's the
>good old C plus something so it should be good too ... bad mistake no !)
>
> ... they have no good reason to choose C++ but they chose it ...

Well, I guess "gradual transition" is a reasonable argument.  I assume
that integrating Ada with existing C code must be (somewhat) harder
than integrating C++ code with existing C code, in particular if you
start using C++ as a "better C."

>Like Edmond Schonberg said in is comparison Ada 9x and C++ :
>
>" Although the C++ community would never state it so baldly, it appears clear
>to us that C++ is to some extent a reaction to Ada. By extending C with some
>of the best ideas of Ada, C++ did in some measure catch up to Ada "

Ed Schonberg also said in public that he thinks C++ is a more powerful
language than current Ada, and less powerful than Ada 9X.  (Stockholm,
earlier this year).

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[fred j mccall 575-3539]

In <OBRY.92Sep14094032@cheesesteak.flash.bellcore.com> obry@flash.bellcore.com 
(Pascal Obry) writes:


>I like very much Ada. And I tried to convince in 2 differents researh center t
o
>use it, but I failled ...

>Why ? 

>because they don't want to learn a new language, 

Bad reason.  Professionals should be both prepared and able to pick up
a new language without incredible difficulty and without huge learning
curve times (although there will, of course, be some impact on
productivity for a while).

>because they don't or can't afford an Ada compiler,

Good reason.  Perhaps it isn't seen so by someone who has never worked
in a budget-constrained atmosphere, but this is perhaps one of the
BEST reasons.

>because they don't see any reason to buy an (expensive) Ada compiler whereas
>they have a free C compiler in any of their computer, here GNAT will do
>something very good.

Good reason, and a good statement with regard to GNAT.  I think that
this may be the best thing that ever happened to Ada.  Given access to
an inexpensive (as in free) compiler, perhaps there will be more
interest in 'free Ada sources', as we see in the case of C on the net. 

>because they think Ada is a too complex language and too big. Here they make
>the big mistake to mix up language and compiler. My point is that it is not
>because the compiler is hard to make that the language is difficult. And in
>this case to make a compiler is difficult because the language is *powerfull*
>not because it is complex to use ..

It is actually something of both (powerful AND complex to use).  This
is not necessarily a bad thing, but 'large' languages like Ada have
significant barriers to adoption at least in part because of their
sheer size and the increased time required to really know them well.

>because they don't like to think a lot about the conception of their projects.
>they want to make it without conception (OO or others ...) and C for this is
>very good because you can do every thing you want, there is alway (a bad) way
>to reach your goal.

Spoken like someone who has never done a major OO project.  If you
think you can just sit down and write a major application in an OO
language "without conception", you are greatly mistaken.

>because they didn't know Ada at all so they chose C++ (yes, they think it's th
e
>good old C plus something so it should be good too ... bad mistake no!)

It is if they are assuming that they can just sit down and 'hack out'
an application in C++ "without conception".  Of course, one of the
advantages of C++ is that all the people who know C can use that
subset of the language, and you can gradually increase in-house
expertise in disciplines (e.g. OO design) that are required to use it
well. 

>------------------------

>Also all these guys sometime use a kind of *meta* language to describe an 
>algorithm ... And you know what : this meta language is something very
>close from Ada ...

Well, mine tends to look more like C, but that's just a product of
past environment.

>So I tried and I failled ... But I can't even understand why !!
>They have no good reasons to don't use Ada, they have no good reason to choose
>C++ but they chose it ...

No, they had good reasons for both.  Ada was too expensive and they
couldn't do anything with it until they learned it.  C++ was a lot
cheaper, and they could at least be somewhat productive with it
immediately, if they already knew C.  

[If they didn't already know C, I'm not sure what the point would be
of choosing one over the other, other than compiler cost.]

>-------------------------

>I learn Ada by myself. I like very much to learn and compare different 
>languages, today I know C, C++, Eiffel, Ada, (plus a lot of other languages
>like Basic, Fortran, Cobol). But after all, I definitly like very much Ada ...

>Like Edmond Schonberg said in is comparison Ada 9x and C++ :

>" Although the C++ community would never state it so baldly, it appears clear
>to us that C++ is to some extent a reaction to Ada. By extending C with some
>of the best ideas of Ada, C++ did in some measure catch up to Ada "

Well, it would seem that Mr. Schonberg was incorrect, since Bjarne
Stroustrup has stated publicly numerous times that Ada was the
inspiration for some of the features that he put in C++.  I'm not sure
why this is supposed to be such a telling point.  Isn't that one of
the IDEAS behind language development; to take the best features of
other languages and try to make them work together?  Other parts of
C++ came from things like Smalltalk.  I'm not sure about this "catch
up to Ada" statement, though.  Just doesn't seem to track to me.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Pascal Obry]

I like very much Ada. And I tried to convince in 2 differents researh center to
use it, but I failled ...

Why ? 

because they don't want to learn a new language, 

because they don't or can't afford an Ada compiler,

because they don't see any reason to buy an (expensive) Ada compiler whereas
they have a free C compiler in any of their computer, here GNAT will do
something very good.

because they think Ada is a too complex language and too big. Here they make
the big mistake to mix up language and compiler. My point is that it is not
because the compiler is hard to make that the language is difficult. And in
this case to make a compiler is difficult because the language is *powerfull*
not because it is complex to use ..

because they don't like to think a lot about the conception of their projects.
they want to make it without conception (OO or others ...) and C for this is
very good because you can do every thing you want, there is alway (a bad) way
to reach your goal.

because they didn't know Ada at all so they chose C++ (yes, they think it's the
good old C plus something so it should be good too ... bad mistake no !)

------------------------

Also all these guys sometime use a kind of *meta* language to describe an 
algorithm ... And you know what : this meta language is something very
close from Ada ...

So I tried and I failled ... But I can't even understand why !!
They have no good reasons to don't use Ada, they have no good reason to choose
C++ but they chose it ...

-------------------------

I learn Ada by myself. I like very much to learn and compare different 
languages, today I know C, C++, Eiffel, Ada, (plus a lot of other languages
like Basic, Fortran, Cobol). But after all, I definitly like very much Ada ...

Like Edmond Schonberg said in is comparison Ada 9x and C++ :

" Although the C++ community would never state it so baldly, it appears clear
to us that C++ is to some extent a reaction to Ada. By extending C with some
of the best ideas of Ada, C++ did in some measure catch up to Ada "

I would like to add that I know some guys that didn't like Ada and its
strong typing and the nested procedures, but now they enjoy this into C++.
So why waiting for C++ V3.9 beta version alpha testing 3.4 ... Use Ada
rigth now, it's a normed and validated language with all these features and
a lot of more ...


Pascal.
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--  Pascal OBRY								     --
--  Room 2D-337				e_mail : obry@bellcore.com  	     --
--  Bellcore								     --
--  445 South Street			voice : 1 - 201 829 4039	     --
--  Post Office Box 1910						     --
--  Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1910					     --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  `` inheritance is surely a good answer, but who knows the question ? ''

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Pascal Obry]

>>Like Edmond Schonberg said in is comparison Ada 9x and C++ :
>>
>>" Although the C++ community would never state it so baldly, it appears clear
>>to us that C++ is to some extent a reaction to Ada. By extending C with some
>>of the best ideas of Ada, C++ did in some measure catch up to Ada "

>Ed Schonberg also said in public that he thinks C++ is a more powerful
>language than current Ada, and less powerful than Ada 9X.  (Stockholm,
>earlier this year).

Yes, I agree too. This was said about Ada 9x and C++ .

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--  Pascal OBRY								     --
--  Room 2D-337				e_mail : obry@bellcore.com  	     --
--  Bellcore								     --
--  445 South Street			voice : 1 - 201 829 4039	     --
--  Post Office Box 1910						     --
--  Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1910					     --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  `` inheritance is surely a good answer, but who knows the question ? ''

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Pascal Obry]

> Spoken like someone who has never done a major OO project.  If you
> think you can just sit down and write a major application in an OO
> language "without conception", you are greatly mistaken.

No, I don't think. But now they use C++ almost like C because they find
a big problem to make a good conception. Because today a lot of peoples enjoy
the OO-languages : it seem so simple, but like you said without conception
it's impossible to do something good. And if the concept of OO-languages
are 'quite simple' the conception is sometime *very difficult* ...

Pascal.
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--  Pascal OBRY								     --
--  Room 2D-337				e_mail : obry@bellcore.com  	     --
--  Bellcore								     --
--  445 South Street			voice : 1 - 201 829 4039	     --
--  Post Office Box 1910						     --
--  Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1910					     --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  `` inheritance is surely a good answer, but who knows the question ? ''

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[sybus.sybus.com!myrddin!tct!psycho!f310.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Randy.Baer]

> :
> : "Ada was not developed by Ichbiah, Firth, et. al as the result of
> : a conscious engineering effort.  In fact, Ada was hacked together
> : by a couple of guys who needed a real-time OS for their PDP-8.  The
> : real-time OS was needed so they could play games, and do a little
> : programming on the side..."
 
        Sounds like the same story about how UNIX was devloped. 

--  
Internet: Randy.Baer@f310.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP: ...!myrddin!tct!psycho!310!Randy.Baer
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write to
     root@psycho.fidonet.org.

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[pacbell.com!well!well.sf.ca.us!jcc]

I've always felt a mandate was inappropriate.  The DoD should simply
leak a clever story, which could go something like this:

"Ada was not developed by Ichbiah, Firth, et. al as the result of
a conscious engineering effort.  In fact, Ada was hacked together
by a couple of guys who needed a real-time OS for their PDP-8.  The
real-time OS was needed so they could play games, and do a little
programming on the side..."

This should be enough to cause at least several pages worth of ads
for Ada products in PC-Magazine, followed by the inevitable ush of
third-party books, tutorials, etc., etc.....  ;-)

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[KMRODGERS]

In article <1992Sep11.164402.7141@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael 
Feldman) writes:
>Five years ago or so, I was made to listen to a drumbeat of exhortation
>from various representatives of the Ada community, meaning DoD folks,
>their contractors, and the compiler houses alike. These prophets told me
>that no student who didn't know Ada would ever be able to get a job.

[deleted]

>The results [of Ada knowledge desirability among non-CS faculty]
>are as follows:
>
>  C - 20                     Dynamo - 1
>  Fortran - 17               Lotus - 1
>  C++ - 7                    Assembly language - 1
>  Basic - 4                  Ada - 0
>  Pascal - 4                 Cobol - 0
>  Lisp - 3                   PL/I - 0
>  Gauss - 1
>
>Granted, this is a small sample. But the fact that 20 of 27 engineering
>professors thought that C would be important to their students' careers,
>and NOT ONE thought Ada would be, is amazing data. If this is the 
>engineering world's impression of Ada in Washington, DC, what is the
>take on Ada in the hinterland?

[deleted]

>Anyone who thinks that Ada is being held back chiefly by not supporting
>multiple inheritance is barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not Ada.
>The problem is us, folks.
>
>Mike Feldman

Amen, brother!  I work for a large aerospace and defense contractor in
the Flight Dynamics area (Advertisement!) and am involved in developing
vehicle simulations, writing specs for flight software, and debugging
flight software (via hardware-in-the-loop).  Back about four years ago,
the word was that all of our deliverable vehicle simulations for future
contracts would be required to be in Ada (they are currently in Fortran).
Several of us forward-looking regular engineers went out, learned Ada, and
became reasonably proficient in it.  What happens?  Either the gov't decides
not to specify Ada for the sim (and sometimes not even the flight software)
or our management weasels out of it.  From what I've seen, the Army is
the most reluctant to move to Ada.  About two years ago, we saw a draft
RFP that required an Ada simulation; four months later, the real RFP said
a Fortran simulation.  The difference?  The draft was pure Air Force, while
the final RFP was Army/AF.  At all of the program reviews, at least one
Air Force guy would stand up and bitch about the simulation not being in Ada.
Recently, we saw a draft RFP which basically provided the first two statements
of a syllogism which went, "All deliverable software shall be in Ada; the
engineering 6-DOF simulation is a piece of deliverable software."  Our mgt.
refused to draw the conclusion, and that proposal team is merrily still
working on a Fortran sim.  Mid- to upper-level engineering management at
this company (and probably others) are scared to death of Ada, even at the
embedded software level!  For whatever reason, and it probably has something
to do with the "mandated" use, Ada engenders a lot of resentment among most
non-CS (using CS to encompass software engineering, no flames please!!)
types.  I don't know how to break the stranglehold the C has (and C++ is
gaining), but as someone who has programmed in Fortran, Jovial, C, C++, and
Ada, I hate to abandon the future to C and its ilk . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rodgers  rodgers%engcon@uunet.uu.net  Loral Vought Systems
I only speak (in tongues) for Brother Bob Tilton!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Val Kartchner]

jcc@well.sf.ca.us (John Christopher Copella) writes:
: 
: I've always felt a mandate was inappropriate.  The DoD should simply
: leak a clever story, which could go something like this:
: 
: "Ada was not developed by Ichbiah, Firth, et. al as the result of
: a conscious engineering effort.  In fact, Ada was hacked together
: by a couple of guys who needed a real-time OS for their PDP-8.  The
: real-time OS was needed so they could play games, and do a little
: programming on the side..."
 
A story alone will not change attitudes about Ada.  There is a big difference
between saying that you've written an operating system in a language and
actually writing a commercially viable operating system in a language.

A major superiority claim can be made on behalf of C's real-time ability over
Ada's real-time ability in that families of commerically viable (meaning
actually FAST) operating systems have been written using C.  While it may be
theoretically possible (ha ha) to do so in Ada, it hasn't been done.  C++,
C's successor, has also been used to write System V Release 4 on Unix which
is already a commercially viable and successful product.
--
|======================== The previous was my opinion =========///============|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind." (tm) Commodore /// Weber State |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us."(tm) Apple \\\///  University  |
|=================== val@csulx.weber.edu ==================\///=== Ogden, UT =|
 

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Ed Schonberg]

Relay-Version: version nyu B notes v1.6.1 1/11/90; site acf3.NYU.EDU
From: schonberg@cs.nyu.edu (Edmond Schonberg)
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:52 EDT
Subject: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

Val Kartchner (cal@news.ccutah.edu) say:
>  My opinion: "Although the Ada community would never state it so baldly, it
>     appears clear to us that Ada 9X, is to some extent, a reaction to C++
>     By extending Ada with SOME of the best ideas of C++, Ada did, in some
>     measure, catch up to C++."

I fully agree, language designers certainly learn from each other,
and it is perfectly clear to everyone associated with the Ada9X project
that C++ is the most direct contender in use today. Of course, the final
sentence should not be in the past tense: Ada9X is not a completed
design yet. Furthermore, the borrowings from Ada into C++ are (at this
point) more apparent that the borrowings from C++ to Ada9X. Some
aspects of Ada9X are indeed a reaction to C++, but most of Ada9X
consists of extensions and generalizations of Ada facilities, and remain
very much within the spirit of the original language. 

> Well, it would seem that Mr. Schonberg was incorrect, since Bjarne
> Stroustrup has stated publicly numerous times that Ada was the
> inspiration for some of the features that he put in C++.  
 
> The C++ Programming Language: Second Edition," (Introduces templates and
> exception handling to the C++ language) p. 4:

>    The template facility was partly designed to formalize macro usage, partly
>    inspired by the Ada generics 

My apologies for having missed this reference; the first edition of the
book had no mention of Ada, and in  the public presentations I have
attended Ada was NEVER mentioned. It stands to reason that Ada would
have to be mentioned in connection with generics and exceptions. Even
though some prefiguration of these features appeared in older languages,
it is fair to say that Ada was the first reasonably widespread language
to develop these features fully. When I mentioned "the C++ community" I
did not mean Bjarne Stroustrup, whose erudition does not need my praise,
but the great majority of C++ programmers, who might have an instinctive
reaction against Ada, even when some features of their favorite language
owes something to it. We might as well aknowledge the extent to which
we influence each other. How else will we learn to write better
software?

Ed Schonberg

New York University
schonberg@cs.nyu.edu

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!cs.adelaide.edu.au!]

In article <1750@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>, dmarshal@Stars.Reston.Unisys.
COM (Dave Marshall) writes:
|> In article <1a0ijeINNfei@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>, andrewd@cs.adelaide.edu.
au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:

|> > 
|> >   with text_io; use text_io;
|> >   with unchecked_conversion;
|> >   procedure file_conv is
|> > 
|> Ack! A totally UNJUSTIFIED use of UNCHECKED_CONVERSION!  Flagellate yourself
|> thrice daily for a week.
|>

I did say it was a hack. I did ask how to do it otherwise.
 

|> > (1) APART from any righteous feelings about breaking the language's
|> > privacy mechanism, are there any good reasons for not doing something
|> > like this?
|> 
|> Yes.  Don't used UNCHECKED_CONVERSION if you don't have to.
|>

Read the question again.
 
|> > 
|> > (2) Is there a better way to do it, one which does not rely on this
|> > sort of hack?
|> 
|> Yes. Access types.  A simple example follows at the end of this response.
|> 

|> 
|> with TEXT_IO;
|> 
|> procedure FILE_TEST is
|> 
|>   type FILE_POINTER is access TEXT_IO.FILE_TYPE;
|> 
|>   type POINTERS is array ( INTEGER range <>) of FILE_POINTER;
|> 
|>   MY_ARRAY   : POINTERS(1..5);
|> 
|>   SOME_NAMES : constant array (INTEGER range 1..5) of STRING(1..8) :=
|>     ( "myfile.1",
|>       "myfile.2",
|>       "myfile.3",
|>       "myfile.4",
|>       "myfile.5");


This won't work for what I want to do. I want to be able to stack the
current input, whatever that might be (including, possibly, standard_input).

What good to me is a pointer to something that I can't assign in the first 
place?

Arthur Evans (ae@sei.cmu.edu) wrote
|> andrewd@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) asks about a stack of items
|> of type Text_IO.File_Type, which is limited private.
|>
|> It would be hard to do if you are using a stack package.  However, if
|> you implement the stack as an array and an index (probably reasonable in
|> your case), just open the file right into the stack.  Leaving out a lot,
|> like this:
|>
|>      File_Stack: array(0..File_Stack_Max) of Text_IO.File_Type;
|>      Current_File: integer := 0;     -- Current item in File_Stack


This won't work either, for the same reason.



here's what I want to be able to do, whether or not I use a stacks
package or an explicit array:


function include(file_name : string) return boolean is
   ifile : file_type;
begin
   open(ifile,in_file,file_name);
   push(some_expression(current_input));
   set_input(ifile);
   return true;
exception
   when others => return false;
end;

function yywrap return boolean is
begin
   if empty_stack then
      return true;
   else
      close_file(current_input);
      set_input(some_other_expression(top_of_stack));
      pop_stack;
      return false;
   end if;
end;


I suspect it is not possible to do using good coding practices, but I would 
like to know, and not just from idle curiosity.


-- 
#######################################################################
#  Andrew Dunstan                   #   There's nothing good or bad   #
#  Department of Computer Science   #   but thinking makes it so.     #
#  University of Adelaide           #                                 #
#  South Australia                  #          - Shakespeare          #
#  net: andrewd@cs.adelaide.edu.au  #                                 #
#######################################################################

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!network.jyu.fi!sakkinen]

In article <1992Sep25.210409.23219@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@news.ccutah.edu (Val K
artchner) writes:
> ...
>A major superiority claim can be made on behalf of C's real-time ability over
>Ada's real-time ability in that families of commerically viable (meaning
>actually FAST) operating systems have been written using C.  While it may be
> ...

Please, tell us even _one_ real-time feature of C !

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Markku Sakkinen (sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi)
       SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative network address)
Department of Computer Science and Information Systems
University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts)
PL 35
SF-40351 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again)
Finland
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[fred j mccall 575-3539]

In <61990005@acf3.NYU.EDU> schonber@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ed Schonberg) writes:


>Relay-Version: version nyu B notes v1.6.1 1/11/90; site acf3.NYU.EDU
>From: schonberg@cs.nyu.edu (Edmond Schonberg)
>Date: 28 Sep 92 16:52 EDT
>Subject: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

>Val Kartchner (cal@news.ccutah.edu) say:
>> Well, it would seem that Mr. Schonberg was incorrect, since Bjarne
>> Stroustrup has stated publicly numerous times that Ada was the
>> inspiration for some of the features that he put in C++.  

I think you may have misattributed this bit, since I think it was mine
and not Val's.  I say 'think' because I'm not positive, since Val and
I posted notes on this subject that were quite similar in several
places. 

>My apologies for having missed this reference; the first edition of the
>book had no mention of Ada, and in  the public presentations I have
>attended Ada was NEVER mentioned. It stands to reason that Ada would
>have to be mentioned in connection with generics and exceptions. Even
>though some prefiguration of these features appeared in older languages,
>it is fair to say that Ada was the first reasonably widespread language
>to develop these features fully. When I mentioned "the C++ community" I
>did not mean Bjarne Stroustrup, whose erudition does not need my praise,
>but the great majority of C++ programmers, who might have an instinctive
>reaction against Ada, even when some features of their favorite language
>owes something to it. We might as well aknowledge the extent to which
>we influence each other. How else will we learn to write better
>software?

Actually, so far as I know, Bjarne has always been quite forthcoming
about which parts of C++ were inspired by what languages (including
Ada).  He has made repeated public statements about this, and just
recently posted about it again in comp.lang.c++.  I'm curious; have
you had large numbers of people from "the C++ community" denying that
any parts of C++ were inspired by Ada?  I ask this because, frankly,
the only time I've ever seen anyone claim that nothing in C++ came
from Ada is when Ada people attribute it to C++ people.  I've never
seen anyone from "the C++ community" say this.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Dag Bruck]

In <comp.lang.ada> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>I'm curious; have
>you had large numbers of people from "the C++ community" denying that
>any parts of C++ were inspired by Ada?

I think that to some extent it depends on how precise you want to be.
I usually simplify matters and tell people that exception handling in
C++ is "just like Ada."  There are of course important differences,
and I know them.  If you want to be more precise you must also mention
influences from other languages, e.g., Clu, Mesa, ML and PL/I.  In
that situation it is easy to answer "absolutely not" if someone asks
if EH in C++ is like EH in Ada.

The C++ community as I know it is not afraid to acknowledge influences
from other languages.  People sometimes make rude jokes about Ada, but
that is not relevant.

In my experience, the C++ community is not very interested in Ada,
which probably is a pity.  I don't really understand why some people
in the Ada community spend so much time comparing with C++; isn't Ada
good enough in itself?  Does it really matter much who's influenced
who?  I think it smells of envy because C++ is a greater commercial
success.

		Dag Bruck
		Member of the C++ community

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Michael Feldman]

In article <1992Sep30.131146.2225@lth.se> dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes
:
[stuff deleted]
>
>In my experience, the C++ community is not very interested in Ada,
>which probably is a pity.  I don't really understand why some people
>in the Ada community spend so much time comparing with C++; isn't Ada
>good enough in itself?  Does it really matter much who's influenced
>who?  I think it smells of envy because C++ is a greater commercial
>success.
>
Amen to that! Let's quit the quibbling, get back to business,
recognize Ada for what it is, and work hard to make it a commercial
success. (Vendors: are you listening out there?)

Mike Feldman

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cm]

>
>dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes:
>
>I think that to some extent it depends on how precise you want to be.
>I usually simplify matters and tell people that exception handling in
>C++ is "just like Ada."  There are of course important differences,
>and I know them.  If you want to be more precise you must also mention
>influences from other languages, e.g., Clu, Mesa, ML and PL/I.  In
>that situation it is easy to answer "absolutely not" if someone asks
>if EH in C++ is like EH in Ada.
>

See a recent post by Bjarne Stroustrup in comp.lang.c++ for his explicit
addressing of what was and was not inspired by Ada in C++.
Exception handling was not really inspired by Ada.  C++
templates were greatly inspired by Ada generics however.

John Goodsen
goodsenj@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Val Kartchner]

sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
: In article <1992Sep25.210409.23219@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@news.ccutah.edu (Val
 Kartchner) writes:
: > ...
: >A major superiority claim can be made on behalf of C's real-time ability ove
r
: >Ada's real-time ability in that families of commerically viable (meaning
: >actually FAST) operating systems have been written using C.  While it may be
: > ...
: 
: Please, tell us even _one_ real-time feature of C !

Since there is no comp.lang.advocacy group.  (There should be.)  Since this
subject (leaking the story about an operating system having been written in
Ada) was brought up in this group, which prompted my reply.  And since the
question was asked (or more correctly, demanded).  Here is my reply:

To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by "real-time"
as used in the English language.  (The schwa (upside-down 'e') is represented
by '@', macron (overline for pronounciation) is represented as an '_' before
the letter, and the centered dot is represented by '*'.)

"The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language -- 3rd Edition",
1992 (hyphenated versus non hyphenated):

	re*al time (r_e'@l, r_el) n. Computer Science.  1. The actual time
	in which a physical process under computer study or control occurs.
	2. The time required for a computer to solve a problem, measured
	from the time data are fed in to the time a solution is received.

	re*al-time (r_e'@l-t_im', r_el'-) adj. Computer Science.  Of or
	relating to computer systems that update information at the same
	rate as they receive data, enabling them to direct or control
	a process such as an automatic pilot.

"Webster's II Riverside University Dictionary", 1984:

	real-time n. Computer Sci. 1. The actual time in which a physical
	process under computer study or control occurs.  2. The time
	required for a computer to solve a problem, measured from the time
	data are fed in to the time a solution is received.

"Collins English Dictionary", 1985 (A British English dictionary):

	re*al-time adj. denoting or relating to a data-processing system
	in which a computer is on-line to a source of data and processes
	the data as it is generated.

Note: none of the above definitions specifies any requirements for "real-time".
However, they all heavily imply that speed is VERY important in "real-time".
In "Ada Versus C++: A Business Case Analysis" (this should be an acceptably
biased souce of information for this group), says that C and C++ both
score higher (are faster) in run-time speed.

However, contrary to common English usage, the same report says that Ada has
a better real-time score.  This apparent contradiction can most easily be
resolved by concluding that Ada has a definition for "real-time" which differs
from common English usage.

sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
: Please, tell us even _one_ real-time feature of C !
Please, first explain these three things to me:

   1 - What is the definition of "real-time" which Ada uses?

   2 - Why does Ada consider it necessary to redefine "real-time"?

   3 - How does this reason differ from the reason that Apple and IBM have
       for redefining "multimedia" to fit what their products do?

   4 - In light of the English definitions of "real-time", name _one_
       real-time feature of Ada not present in C.

Now that that has been addressed, my original point is that C and (by
inheritance) C++ are commercial real-time successes.  If you doubt this
statement, then tell me, why are you not reading this message on a computer
whose operating system was written in Ada.  While I am not a great fan of
U*X itself, you are more likely than not, reading this message on a U*X
system.

Also, more likely than not, you are reading this message because it was
delivered to you by some networking protocol that was written in C.  You
may even be reading it on an X-windows terminal (whose protocol was
written in C) or some terminal emulation program (also most likely written
in C).

Also, especially if you are on a U*X system, that reply that you are now
contemplating composing will be edited with an editor that was most likely
written in C.

We can all point to instances of inferior products being commercial successes
and superior products dying.  (The Beta videotape format was superior in
picture quality, but it didn't come in convenient recording lengths that the
consumer wanted.)  While commercial success does not always follow technical
superiority, there is a high degree of correlation.  But remember, commercial
success does follow the principle on which the United States of America was
founded on: freedom of choice.

				-=:[ VAL ]:=-
--
|===== The previous was my opinion -- val@csulx.weber.edu =====///============|
| "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." =============\///=== Ogden, UT =|
 

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[David Emery]

>Now that that has been addressed, my original point is that C and (by
>inheritance) C++ are commercial real-time successes.  If you doubt this
>statement, then tell me, why are you not reading this message on a computer
>whose operating system was written in Ada.  While I am not a great fan of
>U*X itself, you are more likely than not, reading this message on a U*X
>system.

The "conventional" meaning of real-time is a system that must respond
to external events within (usually restrictive) timing constraints.
My workstation and text editor are not real-time in this sense,
because the only thing that happens when I don't get an adequate
response is that I get mad.  Nothing goes boom or falls out of the
sky. 

This is not true of things like flight simulators and airplanes,
themselves.  Although most of the commercial real-time operating
systems (e.g. Lynx) are written in C or assembler, there is a large
body of real-time embedded code that is written in Ada, operating
system and all.  Boeing has many commercial examples that fly now.

Furthermore, the BiiN operating system (which provided a System V
interface) was itself written in Ada, with a C binding!  (It is fair
to note that BiiN was not sucessful, but my observation was that Ada
was not the cause of the problem.  The problem with BiiN was lack of
marketing.  Now, 5 years after its death, I'd still like to have a
system with the functionality of the BiiN system, particularly its
network object orientation.)

				dave

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[To ny Wen Hsun Lai]

In article <1992Oct5.195015.128@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@news.ccutah.edu (Val Kart
chner) writes:
>sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
>: Please, tell us even _one_ real-time feature of C !
>
[stuff deleted]
>To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by "real-time"
>as used in the English language.
>
[Definitions of "real-time" in American Heritage Dictionary, Webster's II
 Riverside Dictionary, and Collins English Dictionary" deleted]
[more stuff deleted]
>However, contrary to common English usage, the same report says that Ada has
>a better real-time score.  This apparent contradiction can most easily be
>resolved by concluding that Ada has a definition for "real-time" which differs
>from common English usage.

Do you also rely on English dictionaries and "common English usage" for the
meanings of "object-oriented", "inheritance", and "dynamic binding"?

[lots of stuff deleted on the widespread use of C]
>We can all point to instances of inferior products being commercial successes
>and superior products dying....
>While commercial success does not always follow technical
>superiority, there is a high degree of correlation.  But remember, commercial
>success does follow the principle on which the United States of America was
>founded on: freedom of choice.

Long live COBOL and FORTRAN.  :)

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[mcsun!news.funet.fi!network.jyu.fi!sakkinen]

In article <1992Oct5.195015.128@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@news.ccutah.edu (Val Kart
chner) writes:
>sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep25.210409.23219@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@news.ccutah.edu (Va
l Kartchner) writes:
>: > ...
>: >A major superiority claim can be made on behalf of C's real-time ability ov
er
>: >Ada's real-time ability in that families of commerically viable (meaning
>: >actually FAST) operating systems have been written using C.  While it may b
e
>: > ...
>: 
>: Please, tell us even _one_ real-time feature of C !
>
> [long rambling about dictionary definitions etc. deleted)]
>Note: none of the above definitions specifies any requirements for "real-time"
.
>However, they all heavily imply that speed is VERY important in "real-time".
>In "Ada Versus C++: A Business Case Analysis" (this should be an acceptably
>biased souce of information for this group), says that C and C++ both
>score higher (are faster) in run-time speed.
>
>However, contrary to common English usage, the same report says that Ada has
>a better real-time score.  This apparent contradiction can most easily be
>resolved by concluding that Ada has a definition for "real-time" which differs
>from common English usage.

So, according to your reasoning, "speed" is the _only_ real-time characteristic
that matters (and be it just 1% faster).  You will not find many supporters.

>sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
>: Please, tell us even _one_ real-time feature of C !
>Please, first explain these three things to me:
>
>   1 - What is the definition of "real-time" which Ada uses?
> ...

No, it was you who originally touted "the superior real-time capabilities
of C".  I don't even force a definition of 'real-time' upon you.
If _you_ have any definition of 'real-time' which is not totally
ridiculous (like "speed"), please tell us one real-time feature of C
according to that definition.  To support your original claim,
that feature should be better than what Ada has, although I originally
didn't demand even that.
(You are free to look in appropriate books, of course.)

>Now that that has been addressed, my original point is that C and (by
>inheritance) C++ are commercial real-time successes.  If you doubt this
> [rambling totally beside the point deleted]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Markku Sakkinen (sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi)
       SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative network address)
Department of Computer Science and Information Systems
University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts)
PL 35
SF-40351 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again)
Finland
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[David Erickson]

In article <EMERY.92Oct5164907@Dr_No.mitre.org> emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Em
ery) writes:

>Furthermore, the BiiN operating system (which provided a System V
>interface) was itself written in Ada, with a C binding!  

I  would be interested in more details, if anyone can point me to sources
of information.  How were the C bindings implemented?  How were server
tasks implemented?

-Dave Erickson

Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[Bob Kitzberger]

val@news.ccutah.edu (Val Kartchner) writes:

>To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by "real-time"
>as used in the English language.

No, we don't need to know what common English usage is.  Go ask the folks in
comp.realtime for their definition; you'll find that "fast enough" is
usually the speed requirement, not "real fast".  
com         10052 Mesa Ridge Court, San Diego CA 92121 USA
                        +1 619 457 2111    FAX +1 619 457 0888