What good is Ada ???

What good is Ada ???

[Ah Chong]

I have to take Ada this quarter.  

It is actually Data Structures in Ada.

But why learn Ada?  

Why not Java ?

--
Philip Chong
CS Major
Georgia State University

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Robert Dewar]

Philip Chong says

"But why learn Ada?

Why not Java ?"


Well that's a question you should be able to answer yourself once you
know both languages (the fact that you ask the question means you do
not :-)

Java is an interesting language, and there are plusses and minuses for
teaching it as a first language (the lack of good Java based CS1/2 texts
being one issue), but it is clear (if you know both languages), that there
are a number of concepts that would be hard to teach in Java (e.g. storage
management, genericity, ...) compared to Ada.

You should certainly plan on learning both languages. If you work hard at
your Ada course, and really understand Ada well, you should have little
trouble in understanding Java!

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Mike Paley]

In article: <dewar.852416205@merv>  dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) 
writes:
:) Java is an interesting language, and there are plusses and minuses for
:) teaching it as a first language (the lack of good Java based CS1/2 texts
:) being one issue)

I wouldn't rate that as a minus !

-- 
Comm again, Mike. 

If I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies. To prevent this 
re-occurring, next time you read one of my posts, wear a blindfold.

Ex Turnpike user.

If you want to see the rest of this sig. file or find out more about me, 
have a look at http://www.paley.demon.co.uk/ [1996:11:30]

Why Ada for learning Data Structures (was: What good is Ada ???)

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <32cf95b5.9781483@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, p.chong@worldnet.att.net (Ah Chong) writes:
> I have to take Ada this quarter.  
> 
> It is actually Data Structures in Ada.
> 
> But why learn Ada?  
> 
> Why not Java ?

What are the technical characteristics of Java which make you feel
it is a superior language to Ada for learning Data Structures ?
I trust you are not under the impression that the usefulness
of something for an educational purpose is directly related to
how many times it is mentioned in the press !

It sounds like you might be predisposed to learn Java on your own.  
If so, it is better that those in charge at your school have chosen
some other language for the course, since it is generally agreed that
knowing a wide variety of languages better prepares you to understand
the strengths and weaknesses of each.

In the end, however, the choice of Ada for this particular course
was made by wiser folk than you, since you have chosen their school
as a source to enhance your own knowledge.  If that was a mistake,
then you need to transfer schools.  As an Ada fan, however, I urge
to wait until the end of the quarter to judge how well you learned
Data Structures.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Why Ada for learning Data Structures (was: What good is Ada ???)

[James Farr]

In article <1997Jan4.140137.1@eisner>, kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

>In the end, however, the choice of Ada for this particular course
>was made by wiser folk than you, since you have chosen their school
>as a source to enhance your own knowledge.  If that was a mistake,
>then you need to transfer schools.  As an Ada fan, however, I urge
>to wait until the end of the quarter to judge how well you learned
>Data Structures.
>
>Larry Kilgallen

Wow, got kind of defensive there, didn't you!  I mean, his question was 
simply, "Why learn Ada rather than Java?"  I'm kind of interested in that 
myself.  But you didn't answer the question; you just reacted to a perceived 
slight.

This is the same kind of answer you get when you ask an Amiga user why you 
would buy a PC, or a Macintosh user....

Re: Why Ada for learning Data Structures (was: What good is Ada ???)

[Robert S. White]

In article <5amins$nts@nuhou.aloha.net>, jfarr@aloha.net says...

...snip...

>simply, "Why learn Ada rather than Java?"  I'm kind of interested in that 
>myself.  But you didn't answer the question; you just reacted to a perceived 

...snip...

  Ada was designed to do a very good job of modeling data structures - by 
very capable people that had their work reviewed by acknowledged experts in
the field.  It has proven itself in practice and has undergone one major 
refinement (minor cleanups and major OO features added) after its first 12 
years of use.

  IMHO Java is a cleaned up C++ and has yet to really prove itself for broad 
based real world applications (beyond web based Internet applications).  I do
not think of Java as particularly strong in doing data structures that do a 
very clean mapping to actual hardware.  Pascal was used for years as a data
structures language.  Finally Ada is now being used for this purpose.  There is 
no reason for schools to rush to Java for this subject yet.  Yes it is fun to 
try out the latest fad language.  Download the Java SDK from Sun (better yet
get the CD-ROM included in Java texts) and learn this latest language.  But I 
think that it is very reasonable for schools to use a proven and respected 
language for teaching data structures as a concept/subject/tool.  Many/(most?) 
software solutions need this power to do an abstract model of real world items 
to implement a clean solution.

_______________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White                    -- an embedded sys software engineer
WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US --long/cheap alternate I-net address

Re: What good is Ada ???

[john babrick]

Ah Chong wrote:
> I have to take Ada this quarter.  

Awww, poor ba-by!

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Eric B. Lemings]

Ah Chong wrote:
> 
> I have to take Ada this quarter.
> 
> It is actually Data Structures in Ada.
> 
> But why learn Ada?
> 
> Why not Java ?
> 

I'm still learning both languages but I think I can answer this one:

Ada is a more mature language; it has been standardized since 1983.
And everyone knows that the best language for learning, not necessarily
using, data structures is Pascal, or in this case, a Pascal-like
language.

Java is still growing.  It is incomplete having been specified for
the most part but still being far from implemented.  Sorta like the
draft C++ standard.

Eric Lemings.

Re: What good is Ada ???

[WolfMtnRch]

I'd choose ada95, everytime. Especially after reading the Java disclaimer
that came with my new browser. Right up front it clearly states that Java
is not "fault-tolerant". Granted a class is not controlling a missle or
A/C but why would you deliberately choose a language so new to learn with.
Plus, Ada95 has been approved as an international standard. And if that's
not good enough, I know of one Ada95 vender whose compiler will generate
Java.

My Opinion.
John Apa
JTA
********************
The Truth Is Out There,
But Would You Recognize It?
Can You Handle It?
********************

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Michael Feldman]

In article <19970107014700.UAA14671@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
WolfMtnRch <wolfmtnrch@aol.com> wrote:
>I'd choose ada95, everytime. Especially after reading the Java disclaimer
>that came with my new browser. Right up front it clearly states that Java
>is not "fault-tolerant". Granted a class is not controlling a missle or
>A/C but why would you deliberately choose a language so new to learn with.
>Plus, Ada95 has been approved as an international standard. And if that's
>not good enough, I know of one Ada95 vender whose compiler will generate
>Java.

Almost. AppletMagic from Intermetrics, and ObjectAda from Aonix (new
name for Thomson since their merger with IDE) can generate Java
_byte code_, not Java High Level Language. This is even better, actually -
you can write applets without stepping outside Ada. You get Ada bindings
to the Java API, so you write your code in Ada, compile it, and presto 
you've got an applet.

Mike Feldman

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Keith Thompson]

In <19970107014700.UAA14671@ladder01.news.aol.com> wolfmtnrch@aol.com (WolfMtnRch) writes:
[...]
>                                                             And if that's
> not good enough, I know of one Ada95 vender whose compiler will generate
> Java.

To be precise, it generates Java bytecode, not Java.

It's unfortunate that the high level language Java and the low level
(typically interpreted) byte code to which it is typically compiled are
referred to by the same name.  There's no necessary relationship between
the two.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@aonix.com <http://www.aonix.com> <*>
TeleSo^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsy^H^H^H^H Thomson Softw^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Aonix
10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2706
"SPOON!" -- The Tick

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <5av3e0$ki5@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

> Almost. AppletMagic from Intermetrics, and ObjectAda from Aonix (new
> name for Thomson since their merger with IDE) can generate Java
> _byte code_, not Java High Level Language. This is even better, actually -

Actually, you can then take the result and run it through javap[_g]
(Sun's class disassembers).  This will get you a ways there.
Basically sans formal parameters - for some damn reason it only
generates the types in the operation signatures.  Go figure.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Dale Pontius]

In article <E3pqFr.7zC@thomsoft.com>,
        kst@aonix.com (Keith Thompson) writes:
> In <19970107014700.UAA14671@ladder01.news.aol.com> wolfmtnrch@aol.com (WolfMtnRch) writes:
> [...]
>>                                                             And if that's
>> not good enough, I know of one Ada95 vender whose compiler will generate
>> Java.
>
> To be precise, it generates Java bytecode, not Java.
>
> It's unfortunate that the high level language Java and the low level
> (typically interpreted) byte code to which it is typically compiled are
> referred to by the same name.  There's no necessary relationship between
> the two.

There is a dialog of Rexx called NetRexx that compiles to Java
bytecodes. Just another existance supporting your point.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Re: What good is Ada ???

[James O'Connor]

In message <5b5f0c$18t2@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> - pontius@btv.ibm.com (Dale
Pontius)10 Jan 1997 13:08:28 GMT writes:
:>
:>In article <E3pqFr.7zC@thomsoft.com>,
:>        kst@aonix.com (Keith Thompson) writes:
:>> In <19970107014700.UAA14671@ladder01.news.aol.com> wolfmtnrch@aol.com (WolfMtnRch) writes:
:>> [...]
:>>>                                                             And if that's
:>>> not good enough, I know of one Ada95 vender whose compiler will generate
:>>> Java.
:>>
:>> To be precise, it generates Java bytecode, not Java.
:>>
:>> It's unfortunate that the high level language Java and the low level
:>> (typically interpreted) byte code to which it is typically compiled are
:>> referred to by the same name.  There's no necessary relationship between
:>> the two.
:>
:>There is a dialog of Rexx called NetRexx that compiles to Java
:>bytecodes. Just another existance supporting your point.

I thought the NetRexx class was a Java written class that translated the
NetRexx 'language' into Java source code and then fed it to the Java compiler?

:>
:>Dale Pontius

James O'Connor

joconnor@jmpstart.com
http://www.jmpstart.com

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Daniel P Hudson]

"Eric B. Lemings" <zebl1@etsu-tn.edu> wrote:
>Ah Chong wrote:
>> 
>> I have to take Ada this quarter.
>> It is actually Data Structures in Ada.

Whatever.

>> But why learn Ada?
>> 
>> Why not Java ?

 But why learn Java?
 Why not Ada?

 Why indeed.

 Java is a non-standard, broken down version of C++.
 Ada has an ISO standard, has been in use for years and runs
 on more platforms. As well, Ada compiler don't generally need
 the resources Java systems do, are not as buggy, and often
 cheaper RE:GNAT. To put it short, your school isn't going to pay
 money to get a system that haven't been fully tested. Other than that,
 Ask you local Department of Education if they even consider Java
 a language which can be used for a 3 cr. hr. course.

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Brett M. Kettering]

Ah Chong wrote:
> 
> I have to take Ada this quarter.
> 
> It is actually Data Structures in Ada.
> 
> But why learn Ada?
> 
> Why not Java ?
> 
> --
> Philip Chong
> CS Major
> Georgia State University

The Data Structures class that I took required the use of Fortran 77 (I
took the class in 1986) because the language had none.  We learned about
data structures by adding them as library features to the language.

Brett

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Mike Paley]

In article: <32D12A00.331C@llnl.gov>  "Brett M. Kettering" <brettk@llnl.gov> 
writes:
:) The Data Structures class that I took required the use of Fortran 77 (I
:) took the class in 1986) because the language had none.  We learned about
:) data structures by adding them as library features to the language.
:) 

What language had none ?

What is a data structure ?
-- 
Comm again, Mike. 

If I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies. To prevent this 
re-occurring, next time you read one of my posts, wear a blindfold.

Ex Turnpike user.

If you want to see the rest of this sig. file or find out more about me, 
have a look at http://www.paley.demon.co.uk/ [1996:11:30]

Re: What good is Ada ???

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <32D067C8.3920@etsu-tn.edu> "Eric B. Lemings" <zebl1@etsu-tn.edu> writes:

> Ada is a more mature language; it has been standardized since 1983.

Well, actually, since 1995. ;-) Ada now means the language
standardized in ISO/IEC 8652:1995, whereas the 1983 standard should be
refered to by "Ada83" or some such.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com