From: neff@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Randy Neff)
Subject: Commercialization of Ada
Date: 2 Mar 88 06:17:42 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2528@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> (raw)
1. Ada compilers are quite expensive, compared to other production quality
compilers in use. ie C is free with Unix, GNU C is free, C for PC <$100.
2. Ada compilers have runtime fees for their runtime library.
3. Ada compilers generate worse code than C, even with full PRAGMA SUPPRESS
and current optimizers.
4. Ada compilers are slow to compile.
5. Ada does not interface cleanly with windowing systems, like SunView or
X11; it takes alot of C code even to interface to curses.
6. Ada compilers are still bug ridden; a new release of a compiler may
screw up all of your working programs (tis a fact, 3 out of 3 programs
suddenly had illegal instructions, segmentation faults)
A new compiler release means that you have to recompile everything,
INCLUDING any third party libraries you may have purchased ( you did get
source code, didn't you?)
7. Practically no one is being taught Ada at the University level, compared to
Pascal or C. (a professor teaching a parallel computation course required
C programs; refused Ada programs for the homework, he didn't know Ada)
8. In the programming language research community, Ada doesn't make it because
it is not object oriented.
Ada will make it when the compiler is 'as good' as C compilers (including
symbolic debuggers, libraries, supporting X, etc.) and costs about $100.
next reply other threads:[~1988-03-02 6:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1988-03-02 6:17 Randy Neff [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1988-03-08 14:51 Commercialization of Ada Stanley Roger Allen, AdaDude
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox