Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[david.c.willett]

>From article <1993Jul23.122525.26017@hellgate.utah.edu>, by matwood%peruvian.c
s.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Mark Atwood):

{Some material deleted}

> I hate the politics and hypocracy in the DoD world, and am offended by the
> people I meet who think that all they need to know about it is that "the
> DoD designed it, you know what THAT means (roll eyes)."  But I love the
> language that it so readable and comprehensable, and expressive enough to
> say damn near everything that everyone else needs OS calls, nonstandard
> extensions, or knowledge of the compiler/runtime/hardware to hack together.
> 
> Am I so strange?
> 
> --
> Mark Atwood                  | My school and employer have enough problems
> matwood@peruvian.cs.utah.edu | without being blamed for mine.
>

	I don't think you're strange at all for liking Ada, Mark.  It's 
unfortunate that elaborating on why I believe that would probably start 
another flame war.  I became an Ada "disciple" (if that's what people
want to call us) when I saw how easily a multi-vendor project coded by
geographically dispersed development teams integrated.  I was an integration
engineer on the project and was braced for trouble.  Amazingly, there was
none.

	The real reason for our integration success was good software 
engineering discipline, not simply Ada; but the language compelled (coerced)
the reluctant into practicing the discipline :^).  I'm convinced that Ada is
on target by enforcing the SE discipline at the language level since developers
permit the compiler to be the bad guy and compilers don't respond to 
external (e.g. cost/schedule) influence.
 
-- 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies
If you want to know --- ASK!  -- Linda Ellerbee

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Kenneth Anderson]

In comp.lang.ada you write:

<praises of Ada deleted for brevity...>

>Am I so strange?

No.  I also love using the Ada programming language, and I like what was done
to it in the Ada 9X revision.  I've been using Ada for 6 years, and it
is my language of preference...


>--
>Mark Atwood                  | My school and employer have enough problems
>matwood@peruvian.cs.utah.edu | without being blamed for mine.

Ken Anderson
U.C. Irvine

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!seas.gwu.edu!mfeld]

In article <1993Jul23.122525.26017@hellgate.utah.edu> matwood%peruvian.cs.utah.
edu@cs.utah.edu (Mark Atwood) writes:

[some stuff deleted]
>
>Working with C/C++ at school, I got so sick of chasing pointers, debugging at
>runtime, and having interface mismatches, grrr!!  The long and short of it is,
>I fell in love with Ada.  The development environments suck, it's pricy, and
>I'm always having to justify myself, but I don't care.  Now, even when I'm jus
t
>doing design work, or implementing in C, I design and code it up in Ada first,
>and use it as a design language.
>
>I hate the politics and hypocracy in the DoD world, and am offended by the
>people I meet who think that all they need to know about it is that "the
>DoD designed it, you know what THAT means (roll eyes)."  But I love the
>language that it so readable and comprehensable, and expressive enough to
>say damn near everything that everyone else needs OS calls, nonstandard
>extensions, or knowledge of the compiler/runtime/hardware to hack together.
>
>Am I so strange?
>
Nope. You've actually got a lot of company out here. It's hard to tell
from reading this newsgroup, though, which seems too frequently to 
degenerate into political gripe sessions. I think many of the ones who 
are really getting the job done with Ada are staying away from the
newsgroup - they have better things to do.

For all the complaining about who's _not_ doing Ada, it is telling that
Ada is often being used where software _really_ has to work. A few examples:

- avionics software for ALL (I'm pretty sure) new-generation civil airliners,
  including the Russians';

- civil air traffic control systems in ALL countries that are currently 
  revamping their systems;

- the new French high-speed rail lines and the Channel Tunnel.

None of these projects were subject to a mandate, at least not a US
DoD mandate.  I think they simply discovered what you and I did, and
acted accordingly. And this is just Ada83 stuff. Wait 'til 9X...

Flames to /dev/null, please.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"We just changed our CONFIG.SYS, then pressed CTRL-ALT-DEL. It was easy."
-- Alexandre Giglavyi, director Lyceum of Information Technologies, Moscow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Tim Barrios]

In article <9307231621.aa08509@Paris.ics.uci.edu> kanderso@rome.ICS.UCI.EDU (Ke
nneth Anderson) writes:
>In comp.lang.ada you write:
>
><praises of Ada deleted for brevity...>
>
>>Am I so strange?
>
>No.  I also love using the Ada programming language, and I like what was done
>to it in the Ada 9X revision.  I've been using Ada for 6 years, and it
>is my language of preference...

Count me in this group, too.  Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to
use Ada on real projects for 7 years now.  Since then, I've been using C
and C++.  I now teach a C++ course.  It's a whole different world.  I sure
miss doing Ada.  Wish I could get back to it but my employer was purchased
by a C++ "supporter" (AT&T :-), and now I'm stuck "++"ing instead of
tasking.

So, yes, there are *definitely* people out there that like Ada.  The best
products don't always sell the most.
-- 
Tim Barrios, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ
Internet: barriost@agcs.com (new) or barriost%gtephx@ihlps.att.com
UUCP: ...!{ihlps.att.com | att | ncar!noao!enuucp}!gtephx!barriost
voice: (602) 582-7101        fax:   (602) 581-4390

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.]

I was involved (at times) in the review process that led to Ada, so I
can't say I dislike it. I do know that I abandoned the Ada/Pascal world
for C when I discovered I needed some things C could do that Ada couldn't
in the object-oriented world. But then, I'm a simulation programmer,...

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Working on Freeman nets....

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.]

In article <1993Jul24.040229.28663@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
 Feldman) writes:
>In article <1993Jul23.122525.26017@hellgate.utah.edu> matwood%peruvian.cs.utah
.edu@cs.utah.edu (Mark Atwood) writes:
>
>[some stuff deleted]
>>
>>[more stuff deleted]
>
>For all the complaining about who's _not_ doing Ada, it is telling that
>Ada is often being used where software _really_ has to work. A few examples:
>
>- avionics software for ALL (I'm pretty sure) new-generation civil airliners,
>  including the Russians';
>
>- civil air traffic control systems in ALL countries that are currently 
>  revamping their systems;
>
>- the new French high-speed rail lines and the Channel Tunnel.
>
>None of these projects were subject to a mandate, at least not a US
>DoD mandate.  I think they simply discovered what you and I did, and
>acted accordingly. And this is just Ada83 stuff. Wait 'til 9X...
>

But those are the sorts of applications Ada was specifically designed for.
People -->should<-- be using Ada there. But they should not be using Ada
for applications where a fully object-oriented design approach is
appropriate (test software, simulations, operating systems, more
generally, message passing systems).

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Working on Freeman nets....

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!wellerd]

In article <230ni6$eo0@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwi
n) writes:
>>[Various application areas of Ada listed]
>
>But those are the sorts of applications Ada was specifically designed for.
>People -->should<-- be using Ada there. But they should not be using Ada
>for applications where a fully object-oriented design approach is
>appropriate (test software, simulations, operating systems, more
>generally, message passing systems).
>
>Cheers,
Boy, am I ashamed!  Here I am, building a large scale, object-oriented
simulation system, using message passing and doing OS work (RMS
scheduling, resource allocation, message routing), and all in that
*@#$ Ada language.  

Am I doing something wrong? :-)


-- 
type My_Disclaimer is new Standard.Disclaimer with record
	AJPO, SEI : Cognizance := Disavow_All_Knowledge;
end record;--)

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Germany.EU.net!mcsun!julienas!enpc!marronnier!re]

In article <230n6k$env@truffula.fp.trw.com>, erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erw
in) writes:
|> I was involved (at times) in the review process that led to Ada, so I
|> can't say I dislike it. I do know that I abandoned the Ada/Pascal world
|> for C when I discovered I needed some things C could do that Ada couldn't
|> in the object-oriented world. But then, I'm a simulation programmer,...

I'd really like to know what C can, that Ada can't, especially in the
field of object oriented simulation. I'm going to finish my PhD thesis
about applaying OOD to the simulation of thermal systems. I volontarily
choose Ada as the implementation language and it matches our needs very
well. (another one who replies YES to the question of the subject)

|> 
|> Cheers,
|> -- 
|> Harry Erwin
|> Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
|> Working on Freeman nets....


	salut, 
		Rolf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolf Ebert     Groupe Informatique et Systemes Energetiques     GISE EMP-ENPC
Tel: +33 1 43044098 app 3475 FAX: +33 1 43046364            La Courtine Cedex
Internet: ebert@enpc.fr                                F-93167 Noisy le Grand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Laurence VanDolsen]

In article <1993Jul24.040229.28663@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
 Feldman) writes:

> .... I think many of the ones who 
>are really getting the job done with Ada are staying away from the
>newsgroup - they have better things to do.
>
I think you are correct.  I am personally familiar with 4 ongoing Ada
development projects.  These are currently employing over 80 programmers/softwa
re engineers/acceptable title for what sometimes used to be
called coders  :-).  I have not seen a posting from one of these people
in over six months.

--
Laurence L. Van Dolsen - Der fliegender Hollander
My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to them.
Paramax - (805) 987-9302 - vandolsen@cam.paramax.com

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Don Tyzuk]

I like Ada.

I also like reading Greg's posts; he has brought forward
some good points and food for thought.  I suspect that he
is an Ada-fan in the closet. ;-)

Even the world's only true patriot (Ted Holden) has the 
right to speak his mind.  After all, I have the right to
groan when I read his posts.  You can't help but like a 
guy that gives you opening's for world class zingers...

Ada is meant for large projects.  Do we believe that magazine
promotion of a particular software development system will 
influence the project managers' choice?  I hope not.  I would
like to think that the systems industry is aware of Ada and
that it will be adopted on its own merits.

In the long run, Ada will have to stand on its own two feet.  It
is apparent from Greg's posts that despite a "mandate", other 
choices are being made.  Am I the only person who is interested
in why this is happening?

Back here in Nova Scotia, there are a few hundred programmers
employed working for the Canadian Forces, both as civilians
and in uniform.  Many of those uniformed positions will be
contracted out as the military downsizes.  Some work in Ada
is now being done by them, and that Ada is the future.

I have suggested that we adopt Ada at Acadia University, as
opposed to Modula-2.  There is some interest in this, and I have
been asked to be the semi-official "Ada-keeper" on the system
and to make a presentation. This I will do in October or 
November.  For now, however, we are Modula-2 bound.  If the
local employment situation changes to a demand for Ada experts,
we will re-consider Ada for CS1, CS2, etc. _I_ think the writing
is on the wall.  Eventually there will be a sea change in
large scale programming environments to replace FORTRAN and
COBOL.

Whatever, I suggest that at least Ada will takeover a large 
chunk of gov't work.  But, perhaps, not all.


Don

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Richard Dye]

In article <230ni6$eo0@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwi
n) writes:
>But those are the sorts of applications Ada was specifically designed for.
>People -->should<-- be using Ada there. But they should not be using Ada
>for applications where a fully object-oriented design approach is
>appropriate (test software, simulations, operating systems, more
>generally, message passing systems).
>
>Cheers,

Harry, I strongly suggest that you look around in TRW at all the "test
software, simulations, operating systems," and "message passing
systems" that are currently being built or have been built in the past
by your company.  CCPDS-R is all Ada and it is one of the largest
mesage passing systems you'll find.  The UNAS product that came out of
CCPDS-R is all Ada - it's largely a message passing and distribution
framework.  The ASOS (Ada Secure Operating System) project was worked
years ago by TRW.  It's been 3.5 years since I worked at TRW so I'm
sure there are more now than there were then.

Before you say where Ada shouldn't be used, you should at least know
where it's already being successfully used - especially when it's in
your own company.

Dick Dye

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[david.c.willett]

Harry Erwin wrote:

> But those are the sorts of applications Ada was specifically designed for.
> People -->should<-- be using Ada there. But they should not be using Ada
> for applications where a fully object-oriented design approach is
> appropriate (test software, simulations, operating systems, more
> generally, message passing systems).
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Harry Erwin
> Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
> Working on Freeman nets....

Why not?  A language may be optimized for "true object-oriented progarmming"
whatever that turns out to be, but I don't see why Ada is inappropriate for
the types of systems you mention.  I've heard this critisism made of Ada 
before and have not found anyone willing to substantiate it with specific
features or lack thereof.  Care to try?

-- 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies
If you want to know --- ASK!  -- Linda Ellerbee

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Christopher J. Henrich]

In article <1993Jul26.163408.16766@enpc.fr> ebert@enpc.fr writes:
>I'd really like to know what C can, that Ada can't, especially in the
>field of object oriented simulation. I'm going to finish my PhD thesis
>about applaying OOD to the simulation of thermal systems. I volontarily
>choose Ada as the implementation language and it matches our needs very
>well. (another one who replies YES to the question of the subject)
>
>	salut, 
>		Rolf
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rolf Ebert     Groupe Informatique et Systemes Energetiques     GISE EMP-ENPC
>Tel: +33 1 43044098 app 3475 FAX: +33 1 43046364            La Courtine Cedex
>Internet: ebert@enpc.fr                                F-93167 Noisy le Grand

In C you can refer to a function by way of a pointer to it, and you
can move these pointers around like other pointers.  By restrained
use of this ability, you can achieve various object-oriented goals,
such as letting an "object" determine what code is called to perform
a certain operation on it.

In Ada83 you can achieve some of the same goals, by careful use of
generic units with subprogram formals. The decision about what code
to bind to the "formals" must be made at compilation time, and
the syntax of generic units makes it all seem much more rigid.
(But also much more safe. :-)) 

Ada9X has (will have) "access to subprogram" types, and also
new generic constructions.  I predict that when we get good at
using these features, we shall be able to do a lot of neat
object-oriented stuff, in particular object-oriented simulation.

Regards,
Chris Henrich

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <1993Jul27.155947.11409@tinton.ccur.com> cjh@tinton.ccur.com (Christ
opher J. Henrich) writes:

   > In Ada83 you can achieve some of the same goals, by careful use of
   > generic units with subprogram formals. The decision about what code
   > to bind to the "formals" must be made at compilation time, and
   > the syntax of generic units makes it all seem much more rigid.

   For the one-millionth time...elaboration of generic instantiations
occurs at RUN-TIME.  It is always the case that a compiler can
determine at compile time the possible subprograms which will match a
particular generic formal parameter, but that in no way limits the
usefulness of the feature.  For example if you add:

   function "+"(L,R: My_Type) return My_Type is <>;

   at the end of a generic formal part with a generic formal type
My_Type, this will match the plus operator for the actual type which
is visible at the point of instantiation, instead of the predefined
operator for the type.

   Also most good Ada compilers do support calling of subprograms by
their address, and among those which do, the feature mixes cleanly
with generics.  What Ada 9X will add is the safety of parameter and
result profile matching.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: Anyone else actually like Ada?

[Wes Groleau X7574]

In article <1993Jul26.213828.12892@dragon.acadiau.ca> 841613t@dragon.acadiau.ca
 (Don Tyzuk) writes:
>Even the world's only true patriot (Ted Holden) has the 

"Only" ?  Have you ever met a FORTH-worshipper?