* Pseudo-Adas for PCs
@ 1985-01-05 4:52 Stavros Macrakis
1985-01-17 5:47 ` Ada cheap shots Dick Dunn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stavros Macrakis @ 1985-01-05 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
It's interesting to hear of the availability of Ada for PC's.
Unfortunately, it appears that none yet exists. Janus/Ada was cited as
lacking "tasking, generics, exception handling, multi-dimensional arrays
(ouch!), Ada standard strings, operator overloading." I threw away the
brochure they sent me because the product was so incomplete, but if I
recall correctly, it also lacks discriminants, enumeral overloading,
aggregates, named parameters, and several other features.
This, gentlemen, is not Ada.
> A company called ALSYS is also supposed to be comming out with
> an Ada compiler which compiles something near full Ada.
Alsys, by the way, is Jean Ichbiah's company. (Ichbiah was
Ada's chief designer.)
> Commentary
> Ada is a huge language and I do not believe that it
> would be viable without all of those DoD giga-bucks.
I think it's commendable that the DoD has realized that large
investments in software technology are necessary. Actually, the
investments so far are tiny compared to the amount they spend on
programming.
> Although Ada is not without its good features, there is
> no excuse for its size. In my opinion Modula-2 would
> win hands down over Ada but for two things:
> 1. There are only a few Modula compilers available....
What do you think that DoD money is being spent for!? Perhaps they
should have spent it on Modula instead (I don't think so), but support
for a language ends up being as important as its technical qualities--
look at the continued success of Fortran, Basic, and C. It is rational
to compromise technical quality for support. (And of course I continue
to believe that Ada has the technical quality as well.)
> 2. Modula is not a well standardized language as Ada....
Why do you think it took so long to complete the Ada language design?
> I think that Ada has taken block structured languages
> about as far as they can go. I think that the meaning-
> ful language research will concentrate on object
> oriented languages (e.g., offshoots of SmallTalk) and
> data flow languages.
> Ian Kaplan, Loral Data Flow Group
Yes, well, read up a bit on Ada and see how such features as packages
and tasking and overloading really give you object orientation.
-s
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Ada cheap shots
1985-01-05 4:52 Pseudo-Adas for PCs Stavros Macrakis
@ 1985-01-17 5:47 ` Dick Dunn
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dick Dunn @ 1985-01-17 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
> ... Janus/Ada was cited as
> lacking "tasking, generics, exception handling, multi-dimensional arrays
> (ouch!), Ada standard strings, operator overloading." I threw away the
> brochure they sent me because the product was so incomplete, but if I
> recall correctly, it also lacks discriminants, enumeral overloading,
> aggregates, named parameters, and several other features.
>
> This, gentlemen, is not Ada.
Agree. I've always been irritated by the fact that DoD has refused to hear
of the idea of subsetting Ada (particularly in view of its size), but when
I read of this nonsense of Ada-without-Ada, I have to admit, however
grudgingly, that there's a point for the no-subsets rule.
> > 2. Modula is not a well standardized language as Ada....
>
> Why do you think it took so long to complete the Ada language design?
Well, it might be because they started by trying to standardize it, then
produce full implementations, and when they're done they'll go about
getting some user experience...some tasks take much longer when you do them
completely backwards!
> > I think that Ada has taken block structured languages
> > about as far as they can go. I think that the meaning-
> > ful language research will concentrate on object
> > oriented languages (e.g., offshoots of SmallTalk)...
> ...
> Yes, well, read up a bit on Ada and see how such features as packages
> and tasking and overloading really give you object orientation.
I agree with > > that Ada is a point near the end of the path of block-
structured languages. (I think that ALGOL 68 took them much further
than Ada has, in some ways.) However, trying to regard SmallTalk as either
truly object-oriented (semantic quibble possible here) or a radically
different future direction invites the response > that Ada offers almost as
much. Frankly, most of what SmallTalk offers is cosmetic, and its little
game of active data / passive code (data sends messages) is an annoying
renaming of traditional concepts that smacks of the "Emperor's New
Clothes". In other words, (1) Ada is at the end of the overdeveloped
algorithmic languages, but (2) SmallTalk isn't the new direction we need.
Backus' Turing lecture of several years back provides much more insight.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1985-01-17 5:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1985-01-05 4:52 Pseudo-Adas for PCs Stavros Macrakis
1985-01-17 5:47 ` Ada cheap shots Dick Dunn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox