Re: Ada9x Transition Plan (443 lines) ftp-ed from AJPO

[mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)]

In article <jls.669955177@rutabaga> jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
>>      3.2  FREE EDUCATIONAL ADA 9X COMPILATION SYSTEM
>>
>>      Since this system is for educational purposes only,  and 
>>      there is no intent to compete with industry but rather to  stimu-
>>      late the market, it may be that certain features of the  language 
>>      are  not  supported;
>
>Bad idea, bad precedent. One of the great selling points of Ada over
>any other language is that it IS a standard. Introducing dialects,
>ESPECIALLY in an educational system, is regressive. Either teach Ada
>or don't teach Ada, but by all means don't teach "sort-of" Ada.
>
I couldn't agree more with your basic idea. However, industry folks should
realize that in the university world we don't teach languages, we teach 
concepts and the languages are just means to the end (this is especially
true at the undergraduate level). Just because we teach Ada using spiraled
subsets of the language doesn't mean we only teach "sort-of" Ada. I keep
meeting industry guys who are so far removed from what we do that they
sincerely believe we can start with a first semester freshman and teach
all of Ada in one semester. They oughta go back and imagine themselves
before they ever write a program.

I am definitely opposed to a dialect being supported in this educational
system. On the other hand, while everyone sat around and waited, we
at GW and elsewhere taught _hundreds_ of students Ada, from 1983 on,
using TeleSoft's interim system, which (you may recall) did not support 
generics or task types (though it supported named tasks decently well), 
and surely didn't support chapter 13.

An educational Ada system "for the masses" (that is, the first two years of
undergraduate education) need not support chapter 13, in my opinion (indeed
many validation suites went by before chapter 13 was even required!). As
far as Ada83 is concerned, this is the only omission I would tolerate.
Leaving out tasking or generics is stupid and unnecessary, though.

An Ada system in the nature of a modernized Ada/Ed (batch translator/
interpreter) or Arcturus (Basic- or APL-like on-the-fly interpreter)
would be a real boon, especially if its performance were acceptable
and if it were _really_ free, not requiring the insufferable hassle of
dealing with the glacial speed and stodginess of NTIS distribution.
The biggest problem I have with most Ada83 systems is that they were
designed for industry, not for education. As such, the payoff from them
comes with large(r) projects, not the little ones freshmen do. The
nice thing about Arcturus is that performance, within its capacity limits,
is directly proportional to program size. Perceived performance of
commercial compilers is, for student-sized projects, nearly O(1),
with a much-too-high constant.

Politically incorrect though it may be for me to say this, I also am
indifferent as to whether this system will be validated (as opposed to
passing most of the ACVC tests). My recurring nightmare is that the
government will end up funding another ALS or AIE which, by the time the
cautious bureaucrats allow its release, will have long since been overtaken
by events. RAPID PROTOTYPING is what this oughta be about.

AJPO: get something out there _quickly_ and don't be afraid to let us have
premature stuff to play with. We're smart guys and we can work around the
deficiencies. And for Heaven's sake, let us in the universities have
the source code, RIGHT FROM THE START, so we can "add value." 

Thanks for starting a debate on this, Jim. This is gonna be fun.

Mike Feldman