Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation

["Stanley R. Allen" <s_allen@hso.link.com>]

Mike Stark wrote:

> 
> Actually, while Java superficially looks like C++, it is semantically
> more like Smalltalk or Ada 95.  Most of the truly nasty features of C
> are removed (such as pointers -- the only pointers in Java are
> references to objects, and pointer address arithmetic is not allowed).

Concerning semantics, you are certainly correct.
But readability is very much a syntactic issue, and
this is a big minus for Java.  Its "superficial"
similarity to C++ is the problem, especially for
large long-lived systems.

> 
> I too haven't seen any large applications in Java yet.  However, it
> is a good programming language independent of the applet concept, and
> it certainly doesn't deserve to be grouped with C++.

Well, Java does have the "import" clause analogous to
the Ada "with".  But I don't believe that it has "dot"
notation to let you trace entities back to the point
of declaration (at least I haven't seen it in the
examples I've looked at, in Gosling's book).  Which
means it's like the Ada "use" clause is implied
everywhere -- and you know what that means for the
long term.

> I have also used
> the Intermetrics AppletMagic tool to compile Ada code into Java classes,
> which might be the way to develop large applications for the Web,
> rather than writing everything in Java.

This is fine by me -- really it means that you are
compiling Ada to another kind of object code -- the
Java Virtual Machine.  This is the real "revolution"
(folks want think it's a new idea) about Java.
The language itself is unnecessary.  Most of the
rah-rah about "Java" in the press is really about the
JVM concept; people just get confused (God bless 'em).

> I'm not a fan of mandates in general.  Ultimately Ada is going to have
> to compete in the marketplace.  For mission-critical software such as
> missile guidance and flight control, a DOD mandate makes sense.  For
> business applications, the use of other languages is not a big issue
> with me.

Yes, the DoD Ada mandate makes sense.  But enforcing it may
be the only way that the Ada market survives until the
commercial tech-transfer really takes place.  Remember the
Ada universe circa 1986?  Few compliers, only a few early
adopters in the DoD, lots of criticisms in the Air Force,
etc.  But the Ada mandate was taken more seriously back
then; the Ada market grew, more compilers came on line,
more commercial projects started to happen, etc.

DoD enforcement of its own Ada policy would have far
reach, and Ada can penetrate into the marketplace
based on it.  Don't forget that the DoD is still one
of the very largest procurement agencies for new SW.
And DoD standards don't have to be marketplace rejects.
Remember where TCP/IP came from?  It's not too late for
Ada to be the next big DoD tech-transfer success story.

-- 
Stanley Allen
s_allen@hso.link.com
(281) 280-4445
-- my opinions only