* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) [not found] ` <7197@think.UUCP> @ 1987-08-17 13:56 ` Leonard Vanek 1987-08-19 6:26 ` Kent Paul Dolan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Leonard Vanek @ 1987-08-17 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw) 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). Len Vanek {utzoo mnetor}!dciem!array!len Array Systems Computing Toronto ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) 1987-08-17 13:56 ` Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) Leonard Vanek @ 1987-08-19 6:26 ` Kent Paul Dolan 1987-08-20 23:27 ` Marc Gibian SUD x 3393 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Kent Paul Dolan @ 1987-08-19 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) 1987-08-19 6:26 ` Kent Paul Dolan @ 1987-08-20 23:27 ` Marc Gibian SUD x 3393 1987-08-21 18:23 ` Doug Bryan 1987-08-23 13:47 ` Free Ada(tm) compilers (was: lots of unrelated stuff) Kent Paul Dolan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Marc Gibian SUD x 3393 @ 1987-08-20 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw) I can not remain silent after reading the referenced posting. As a member of the corporate world attempting to use ADA for one of its designated purposes, embedded military systems, a validated ADA compiler for home computers seems a useless piece of software. ADA was not designed to allow the development of inexpensive compilers. It was designed (for better or for worse) for military software, usually very large software systems, where the cost of the compiler is a very small part of the overall budget. There are certainly lots of things to fault in ADA, but this is not one. -- Marc S. Gibian Senior Software Engineer SSL, Raytheon phone: (617) 440-3393 mail: gibian@turbo.ray.com or gibian@sud.ray.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) 1987-08-20 23:27 ` Marc Gibian SUD x 3393 @ 1987-08-21 18:23 ` Doug Bryan 1987-08-23 13:47 ` Free Ada(tm) compilers (was: lots of unrelated stuff) Kent Paul Dolan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Doug Bryan @ 1987-08-21 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) oh come now, an IBM PC is no longer a "home" computer. if it were, IBM would have never ventured into the PC market. Also, there is nothing about military software that makes it any harder or easier to implement than many, many other kinds of software. Ada is just a tool. if it helps you do your job, use it. doug ------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Free Ada(tm) compilers (was: lots of unrelated stuff) 1987-08-20 23:27 ` Marc Gibian SUD x 3393 1987-08-21 18:23 ` Doug Bryan @ 1987-08-23 13:47 ` Kent Paul Dolan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Kent Paul Dolan @ 1987-08-23 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <194@turbo.RAY.COM> gibian@turbo.RAY.COM (Marc Gibian SUD x 3393) writes: >I can not remain silent after reading the referenced posting. As a member of >the corporate world attempting to use ADA for one of its designated purposes, >embedded military systems, a validated ADA compiler for home computers seems >a useless piece of software. ADA was not designed to allow the development >of inexpensive compilers. It was designed (for better or for worse) for >military software, usually very large software systems, where the cost of >the compiler is a very small part of the overall budget. There are certainly >lots of things to fault in ADA, but this is not one. > >Marc S. Gibian [PLEASE, the lady's name is NOT upper case, and IS trademarked: "Ada(tm)".] As the POSTER of the referenced posting, I was simply responding to statements, by a DOD (AJPO) Brigadier General at an Ada Education conference in Hampton, Virginia, about 1984, and by the lady managing software reliability for NASA for the space station at an ODU CS department seminar in 1986, that it was becoming extremely difficult to meet staffing expectations or to budget training costs for Ada programmers, because there simply weren't enough of us around. My point, in my posting, was that there would be lots of experienced Ada programmers, just like there are now lots of experienced BASIC (yeech!) programmers, if Ada came free with the hardware. Considering the dollar figures being bruited around at these two meetings, it is my conviction that DOD could cost effectively create and GIVE AWAY compilers for home computers, just to increase the pool of experienced Ada programmers. It really doesn't matter whether all the home compilers are ever used for is writing new versions of Pac Man, as long as DOD gets sufficient good Ada programmers this way cheaper than by its current methods. The difficulty, of course, is finding a way, presuming my estimate is correct, for buying and GIVING AWAY compilers within the current Federal procurement regulations. That kind of challenge would make a very strong manager flinch! It would be much easier to buy them for DOD use for each targeted home machine (they are surely all in use by DOD somewhere!) and then sponsor a friendly freedom of information act suit to get tehm out to the public, but this would be too sneaky, I suppose. Sigh. Kent, the man from xanth. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) [not found] <8707190424.AA10158@cogsci.berkeley.edu> [not found] ` <434@sugar.UUCP> @ 1987-08-19 18:00 ` Steven D. Litvintchouk 1987-08-20 12:39 ` Arny B. Engelson 1987-08-25 6:04 ` Roger Vossler 2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Steven D. Litvintchouk @ 1987-08-19 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.1 of Sun Aug 2 1987 on linus (berkeley-unix) In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > 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 DoD already sponsored the development of two Ada compilers + associated toolsets: the Army Ada Language System, and the Air Force Ada Integrated Environment. For various reasons, these were not entirely successful, especially compared to the commercial efforts. > 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. I agree wholeheartedly. The Amiga is especially interesting because of its multitasking exec built into hardware. With multitasking supported by message passing, the Amiga might provide a highly efficient runtime environment for Ada. Have any Ada compiler writers looked at the Amiga either as a host or target? > 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. Meridian is developing a compiler for the IBM PC, and it's logical to assume that they or someone else will host/target the Mac. > 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.) Perhaps another reason is that Ada compilers wouldn't compare favorably with Turbo Pascal, Manx C, etc., because of: a. Efficiency: I can get a Modula-2 compiler for my Amiga that generates code comparable in efficiency to C. Also, I can run everything, libraries and all, off a single floppy. What Ada compilers can do a comparable job in compilation and runtime efficiency? Will I be forced to buy a 50 megabyte hard disk to host the Ada libraries on my Amiga? b. Target environment: Again, the Modula-2 compiler for my Amiga provides a *full* language interface to the graphics routines, the windowing interface, the Amiga exec, the ROM routines, etc. Essentially I can program nearly anything in Modula-2 that I can program in C. But most Ada compilers don't provide such wide interfaces to the target machine. It's ridiculous for Alsys, say, to sell a PC compiler that takes over the whole machine, bypasses MS-DOS, and requires a special board. There are two kinds of Ada users: those who program in Ada because the DoD tells them to, and those who program in Ada because they genuinely feel it's a superior programming language. If you want to reach this latter group of users, you must provide the same kinds of efficiency and support facilities that people have come to expect from C, Turbo Pascal, etc. The excuse that it's OK that Ada compilers consume a lot of resources because they're doing so much work to process *huge* multiperson software wears a little thin in the PC world; I don't write huge multiperson programs on my Amiga. Steven Litvintchouk MITRE Corporation Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 Fone: (617)271-7753 ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa UUCP: ...{cbosgd,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sdl ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) 1987-08-19 18:00 ` Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) Steven D. Litvintchouk @ 1987-08-20 12:39 ` Arny B. Engelson 1987-08-21 15:07 ` spf 1987-08-23 14:04 ` Kent Paul Dolan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Arny B. Engelson @ 1987-08-20 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <11466@linus.UUCP>, sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: > > In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > > > 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. > > > 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. > > Meridian is developing a compiler for the IBM PC, and it's logical to > assume that they or someone else will host/target the Mac. > I'm not in any way associated with Meridian Software Systems, but since I have this month's Defence Science and Electronics in front of me, and it's relevant to this discussion, this is what Meridian says in the ad they have in this magazine: (paraphrased) Meridian's AdaVantage v2.0 has been validated on the IBM PC/XT, IBM PC/AT, and the Zenith Z-248. They list a whole bunch of Chapter 13 stuff that they implemented. The ad says the compiler runs with 640K, a hard disk, and DOS v2.1 or higher. The price is listed at $795 (in single quantities) and they claim it compiles about 1000 lines/minute on an IBM PC/AT. Additional info from the ad: An AdaTraining compiler (aimed at the educational folks) sells for $395, and an AdaStarter compiler for $129, which they say incorporates all the features, but limits the number of library units and lines per compilation unit. Some DOS utility routine packages are also available for $50, and they claim a source level debugger and Ada editor will be available in the fall. Seems to me like a short 5 years, doesn't it? I've never seen these tools, but it sure sounds like they're heading in the right direction. Hopefully, we'll soon see a lot more Ada tools in this price range. As a courtesy (and so people don't contact me about it), here are the numbers to contact them: outside Calif: (800)221-2522, inside: (714)380-9800. Arny B. Engelson {ihnp4|bonnie|clyde}!wayback!arny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) 1987-08-20 12:39 ` Arny B. Engelson @ 1987-08-21 15:07 ` spf 1987-08-23 14:04 ` Kent Paul Dolan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: spf @ 1987-08-21 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1191@wayback.UUCP> arny@wayback.UUCP (Arny B. Engelson) writes: >I'm not in any way associated with Meridian Software Systems, but since I >have this month's Defence Science and Electronics in front of me, and it's >relevant to this discussion, this is what Meridian says in the ad they have >in this magazine: > (paraphrased) >Meridian's AdaVantage v2.0 has been validated on the IBM PC/XT, IBM PC/AT, >and the Zenith Z-248. They list a whole bunch of Chapter 13 stuff that they >implemented. The ad says the compiler runs with 640K, a hard disk, and DOS >v2.1 or higher. The price is listed at $795 (in single quantities) and they >claim it compiles about 1000 lines/minute on an IBM PC/AT. I have the pre-validation version of the Meridian Ada compiler running on my AT&T PC 6300. While I've only thrown some casual programs at it in my spare time, its performance and useability were pretty much the same as my MS C and Pascal compilers. Now that it's validated, I think I'm supposed to get the validated version for $50, since I bought a pre-V copy. When I get time, I'll try to exercise it (and my limited knowledge of Ada) more and report my experiences. Peace, Steve Frysinger ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) 1987-08-20 12:39 ` Arny B. Engelson 1987-08-21 15:07 ` spf @ 1987-08-23 14:04 ` Kent Paul Dolan 1987-08-24 16:12 ` Mark Harris 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Kent Paul Dolan @ 1987-08-23 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1191@wayback.UUCP> arny@wayback.UUCP (Arny B. Engelson) writes: >In article <11466@linus.UUCP>, sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: >> >> In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> >> > 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. >> >> > 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. >> >> Meridian is developing a compiler for the IBM PC, and it's logical to >> assume that they or someone else will host/target the Mac. >> > >[...] this is what Meridian says [in an ad] (paraphrased): >Meridian's AdaVantage v2.0 has been validated on the IBM PC/XT, IBM PC/AT, >and the Zenith Z-248. [...] The price is listed at $795 [...] >An AdaTraining compiler (aimed at the educational folks) sells for $395, >and an AdaStarter compiler for $129, which they say incorporates all the >features, but limits the number of library units and lines per compilation >unit. [...] Seems to me like a short 5 years, doesn't it? > >I've never seen these tools, but it sure sounds like they're heading in the >right direction. Hopefully, we'll soon see a lot more Ada tools in this >price range. >Arny B. Engelson {ihnp4|bonnie|clyde}!wayback!arny I was aware of the Meridian ad when I made the previous posting, although it was conveyed to me as $795 PRE-validated, and a bit over $1000 validated. This is still way off the mark, as is a crippled version (why bother?) at $139. The price needs to get down to Turbo Pascal's $49.95 introductory offer, to penetrate a market which is, after all, not clamoring for Ada compilers in the $800-$1000 range. Meridian's offering is a big improvement over the previous Alsys offering in terms of price: a three or fourfold improvement, I think, but it surely isn't going to put Ada(tm) in the hands of every school kid in America. On the other hand, DOD could probably buy the rights to Meridian's product for well under $10,000,000, (getting the first Ada compiler ever procured by DOD on a firm, fixed price contract and delivered on schedule!) and use it to promulgate Ada throughout the land. Just a dream of course. When has the government ever done anything rational? ;-) After all, they used to employ me! Kent, the man from xanth. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) 1987-08-23 14:04 ` Kent Paul Dolan @ 1987-08-24 16:12 ` Mark Harris 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Mark Harris @ 1987-08-24 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <2237@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > The price needs to get down to Turbo >Pascal's $49.95 introductory offer, to penetrate a market which is, >after all, not clamoring for Ada compilers in the $800-$1000 range. > Oddly enough, I read recently in PC Week that Borland is considering the idea of an Ada compiler. Mark Harris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) [not found] <8707190424.AA10158@cogsci.berkeley.edu> [not found] ` <434@sugar.UUCP> 1987-08-19 18:00 ` Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) Steven D. Litvintchouk @ 1987-08-25 6:04 ` Roger Vossler 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Roger Vossler @ 1987-08-25 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <2176@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: *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. Although we are a large defense contractor and are using Ada, members of my group have used Modula-2 very successfully on a number of efforts internally. Modula-2 makes a very nice, small, cheap, fast, and powerful subset of Ada, particularly, when we have to pay for it out of our own pockets. 8-) Taxpayers may not be too concerned about how their money is spent, but stockholders are less charitable. -- -- Roger Vossler TRW, Bldg O2-1395, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 BIX: rvossler UseNet: dragon@trwspf.trw.com ATT: 213.535.2804 ....!sdcrdc!trwrb!trwspf!dragon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1987-08-25 6:04 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <8707190424.AA10158@cogsci.berkeley.edu> [not found] ` <434@sugar.UUCP> [not found] ` <3664@well.UUCP> [not found] ` <7197@think.UUCP> 1987-08-17 13:56 ` Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) Leonard Vanek 1987-08-19 6:26 ` Kent Paul Dolan 1987-08-20 23:27 ` Marc Gibian SUD x 3393 1987-08-21 18:23 ` Doug Bryan 1987-08-23 13:47 ` Free Ada(tm) compilers (was: lots of unrelated stuff) Kent Paul Dolan 1987-08-19 18:00 ` Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.) Steven D. Litvintchouk 1987-08-20 12:39 ` Arny B. Engelson 1987-08-21 15:07 ` spf 1987-08-23 14:04 ` Kent Paul Dolan 1987-08-24 16:12 ` Mark Harris 1987-08-25 6:04 ` Roger Vossler
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox