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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!eos!aurora!labrea!Shasta!neff
From: neff@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Randy Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Commercialization of Ada
Message-ID: <2528@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 2 Mar 88 06:17:42 GMT
Reply-To: neff@Shasta.UUCP (Randy Neff)
Distribution: na
Organization: Stanford University
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.