Re: Feasibility of using Ada in new development

[dan.r.mcleran@seagate.com (Dan McLeran)]

Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:<mKKYc.2888$w%6.409@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Dan McLeran wrote:
> 
> > MS .Net and Borland tools and support contracts are not free.
> > From my own research, they don't charge as much as ACT.
> 
> Sure, but you have to consider
> 
> 1. What you get. My experience with ACT support was very positive; with 
> Borland, less so.
> 
> 2. The total cost. ACT only charges for support; MS & Borland also 
> charge for the software.

That's true. If one adds up the cost of the tools and support
together, it's probably a wash.

I guess I was expecting more from the IDE for the money. If ACT is
going to sell support for these tools, they should make them worth
having. An IDE without code completion help? Gimme a break. A GUI
builder that doesn't let you write your event handler code while
you're building your GUI? Again, gimme a break.

IMO, Ada would be a more popular language if programmers were supplied
with great Ada development tools. This is especially true if one wants
to convert programmers from another language over to Ada. Programmers
currently developing code in C/C++ and Java (like me) have a very wide
selection of great tools (both free and commercial). It's hard to
justify moving to a programming language where the tools are much less
capable and harder to use than the ones with which most developers are
accustomed.

Allow me to predict how some of you will reply: "Tools are not as
important as the programming talent and/or language." I agree, up to
the point where the tools can actually hinder productivity.