From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!ames!xanth!kent
From: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)
Message-ID: <2176@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 02:26:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.2176
Posted: Wed Aug 19 02:26:52 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Aug-87 06:42:57 EDT
References: <8707190424.AA10158@cogsci.berkeley.edu> <434@sugar.UUCP> <3664@well.UUCP> <7197@think.UUCP> <524@array.UUCP>
Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Keywords: No affordable validated home Ada compilers.
Summary: less a language than a compiler problem
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <524@array.UUCP> len@array.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) writes:
>I could not resist pointing this comment out to the readers of comp.lang.ada.
>It seems that the (lack of) credibility of Ada(tm) is simply taken for
>granted in some circles.
>
>In article <7197@think.UUCP> barmar@godot.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
>writes:
>
>>I agree with the original poster, the programs (but not the
>>algorithms) in Knuth are useless.
>          ...
>>				If he really wants to include
>>programs, but doesn't want people to simply copy them, he could write
>>them in pseudocode or Ada(tm).


I think (or maybe "For me") this is less a problem with Ada's
credibility, than with the availability of compilers for the casual
user.  The cheapest validated personal computer Ada compiler still
porks in above $1000, last I heard.  (I've given up waiting, and
ordered a Modula 2 compiler for personal use, $200 list.)  So, code
written in Ada might as well be pseudocode, for all most of us care
for our own use.  I still use Ada in the mainframe to which I have
access, as, I'm sure, do most readers of this group, but that does zip
for me in picking a language to teach my kids (after Logo, the _only_
first language for kids), or to use to write spiffy toys for the fun
of it.

DOD could save grunches of training costs downstream by sponsoring
high quality, validated, PUBLIC DOMAIN Ada(tm) compilers for the
existing suitable home computers now.  The Mac, the PC-AT and clones,
the Amiga 500/1000/2000, and the Atari come to mind as likely targets
for such an effort.  This would probably be a direct 100 or 1000 to 1
benefit to cost ratio in terms of DOD and other government training
money saved by having folks train themselves in Ada, and would aid the
entire national software productivity picture by vastly upgrading the
use of a maintainable, software engineering oriented language
nationwide, as a no added cost side benefit.

At the rate things are going, it might be 5 years before a validated
Ada compiler priced for the home user is available.  That is just five
more years of DOD funding essentially all Ada training.

The excessive (better, not sensitive to company size) cost of
validation probably prevents a lot of small companies from considering
making a splash in the Ada compiler pool.  (The 20 man years or so of
high priced talent required doesn't help a lot, either, of course.)

[Am I shouting loud enough, AJPO?  NASA?  I tend to get hoarse, and
give up in despair, if I have to do this kind of stuff for long.]

Kent, the man from xanth.