* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
@ 1996-11-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Scott McCoy
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-11-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Steve Jones said
"This is a problem, bindings do help but they always come along after you
need them, as a result you have to write your own all the time."
A huge exaggeration of course, lots of people find the bindings they
need before they need them, that is especially true these days!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-11-11 0:00 ` Scott McCoy
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Brendan WALKER
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Scott McCoy @ 1996-11-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>, Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> writes:
|>
|> 6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada. Most Ada compilers are
|> still rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same
|> way a C compiler does.
|>
There is (or was) a VisualAda product. Was pretty good, too. I'm
afraid I haven't kept up with it or the company that made it, but I
was very happy with the tool when I did. I especially liked building
rapid prototypes with it, because I found I didn't have to throw away
as much of the prototype app as I did with other languages.
--
Scott McCoy
Harris Information Systems Division
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Scott McCoy
@ 1996-11-13 0:00 ` Brendan WALKER
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada (NOT!) Dirk Dickmanns
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada Corey Minyard
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Brendan WALKER @ 1996-11-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>,
Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
>Michiel Perdeck wrote:
>>
>> I can think of some reasons, can you refute them?
[snip]
>> 4. Ada is not right for GUI programming.
>This just isn't right, the project I'm on at the moment has zero lines
>of C code in it, uses Ada bindings for PEX and X and gets along just as
>well as the last project where we used C for the GUI. The only problem
>is that the bindings aren't as powerful as they could be. You just have
>to be smarter.
Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine. But the smart players use
tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
for their overall system design.
Regards,
--
Brendan Walker | The opinions expressed above are obviously
IASSF Project, | the ramblings of a troubled mind, and
GMS S3I (Australia) | therefore not those of my employer.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada (NOT!)
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Brendan WALKER
@ 1996-11-13 0:00 ` Dirk Dickmanns
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dirk Dickmanns @ 1996-11-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
bjw@mirage.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER) writes:
>Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
>development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
>any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
>OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
>time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine.
Well, there is at least one system that proves you wrong.
XForms with fdesign
- comes with the possibility to generate Ada code,
- is free for non-commercial use,
- is, as far as I used it, very stable,
- allows access to Xlib for your own graphics,
- and it is not such a BLOATED PIG you get elsewhere.
http://ocsystems.com/xada/xforms1.html
>But the smart players use
>tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
>pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
>for their overall system design.
Aaah, nice being called a smart player. But...
Some are even smarter and resist the push ;-)
Dirk
--
Dirk Dickmanns -- REALIS -- real-time dynamic computer vision
Sun OS 4.1.3; PC Linux; Ada, OCCAM, C, Eiffel, PROLOG, C++
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Brendan WALKER
@ 1996-11-13 0:00 ` Corey Minyard
1996-12-02 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Corey Minyard @ 1996-11-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
bjw@mirage.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER) writes:
>
> In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>,
> Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
> >Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> >>
> >> I can think of some reasons, can you refute them?
>
> [snip]
>
> >> 4. Ada is not right for GUI programming.
> >This just isn't right, the project I'm on at the moment has zero lines
> >of C code in it, uses Ada bindings for PEX and X and gets along just as
> >well as the last project where we used C for the GUI. The only problem
> >is that the bindings aren't as powerful as they could be. You just have
> >to be smarter.
>
> Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
> development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
> any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
> OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
> time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine. But the smart players use
> tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
> pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
> for their overall system design.
>
Well, XForms supports Ada directly (generates Ada code through a
converter). It seems to work fine, and XForms is a lot better than
any other GUI framework I have used. And it is free.
--
Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@metronet.com
Work: minyard@nortel.ca UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com
--
Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@metronet.com
Work: minyard@nortel.ca UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada Corey Minyard
@ 1996-12-02 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
1996-12-04 0:00 ` Dana Miller
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Craig Spannring @ 1996-12-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
>Michiel Perdeck wrote:
>>
>> 2. Learning the language takes long (= expensive).
>I'd say learning C takes longer as explaining pointers, memory
>deallocation etc to new programmers takes ages (and they still get it
>wrong).
Learning pointers, arrays, and in/out parameters in C is difficult and
you can't write anything more than 'hello world' without understanding
these concepts. Ada has some difficult concepts, but you only need
the simple concepts for most programs. Overall I would guess someone
with no experience could be productive sooner in Ada than in C. Are
there any studies on the learning curves of C++ vs Ada?
Now of course most of the programmers out there looking for work
already know C or C++.
>6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada. Most Ada compilers are still
>rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same way a C
>compiler does.
You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
steep for a toy to use at home.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-12-02 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
@ 1996-12-04 0:00 ` Dana Miller
1996-12-05 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dana Miller @ 1996-12-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
Spannring) wrote:
> Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
>
> >Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> >>
>
> >> 2. Learning the language takes long (= expensive).
> >I'd say learning C takes longer as explaining pointers, memory
> >deallocation etc to new programmers takes ages (and they still get it
> >wrong).
>
> Learning pointers, arrays, and in/out parameters in C is difficult and
> you can't write anything more than 'hello world' without understanding
> these concepts. Ada has some difficult concepts, but you only need
> the simple concepts for most programs. Overall I would guess someone
> with no experience could be productive sooner in Ada than in C. Are
> there any studies on the learning curves of C++ vs Ada?
>
> Now of course most of the programmers out there looking for work
> already know C or C++.
>
> >6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada. Most Ada compilers are still
> >rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same way a C
> >compiler does.
>
> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> steep for a toy to use at home.
MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400
The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
four figures than two. Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
all across the board. WOW they are EXPENSIVE!! The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
what Ada does out of the box. Not a bad deal. The other advantage of the
Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
compilers from MS or Borland.
--
"I'm always baffled by the number of software people who think fast code is better than correct code!" Me.
dmiller@iquest.net
Senior Software Engineer and jack of all trades.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-12-04 0:00 ` Dana Miller
@ 1996-12-05 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1996-12-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> Spannring) wrote:
>> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
>> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
>> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
>> steep for a toy to use at home.
>
> MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400
Unless it is very well hidden, Codewarrior does not include a visual
layout program. AppMaker from Bowers does an excellent job and will
interoperate with CodeWarrior (Pascal or C*), but the total price is
then up to the $600 level. I don't consider that horrible, but it
is not particularly lower than ObjectAda for Windows on Intel.
> The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
> four figures than two. Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
> all across the board. WOW they are EXPENSIVE!! The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
> Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
> bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
> what Ada does out of the box. Not a bad deal. The other advantage of the
> Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
> change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
> compilers from MS or Borland.
Yes, rather than torture programmers with frequent language changes
the Ada community prefers to torture purchasing agents with frequent
company and product name changes. ObjectAda is now from a company
called Aonix. Formerly Thomson. Former Alsys.
Larry Kilgallen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
1996-12-02 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
@ 1996-12-06 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-09 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
1996-12-10 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jon S Anthony @ 1996-12-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> > Spannring) wrote:
>
> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
> >
> > MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400
>
> Unless it is very well hidden, Codewarrior does not include a visual
> layout program. AppMaker from Bowers does an excellent job and will
> interoperate with CodeWarrior (Pascal or C*), but the total price is
> then up to the $600 level. I don't consider that horrible, but it
> is not particularly lower than ObjectAda for Windows on Intel.
Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
ClearCase CMS for crying out loud). The _personal_ version (which
doesn't look too toy like either) is $245. As pointed out below, to
get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
what you get for the $600.00.
> > The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
> > four figures than two. Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
> > all across the board. WOW they are EXPENSIVE!! The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
> > Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
> > bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
> > what Ada does out of the box. Not a bad deal. The other advantage of the
> > Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
> > change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
> > compilers from MS or Borland.
>
> Yes, rather than torture programmers with frequent language changes
> the Ada community prefers to torture purchasing agents with frequent
> company and product name changes. ObjectAda is now from a company
> called Aonix. Formerly Thomson. Former Alsys.
Yeah, really! Criminey, I was just getting used to "Thomson"...
/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
@ 1996-12-06 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-09 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1996-12-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <JSA.96Dec5213408@alexandria>, jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes:
> In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>> Yes, rather than torture programmers with frequent language changes
>> the Ada community prefers to torture purchasing agents with frequent
>> company and product name changes. ObjectAda is now from a company
>> called Aonix. Formerly Thomson. Former Alsys.
>
> Yeah, really! Criminey, I was just getting used to "Thomson"...
I spoke to someone at their booth in Philadelphia yesterday, and
they convinced me of the wisdom of the change. Although Thomson
was an appealing name to me, there are groups of prospective
customers in other countries for whom it was not an appealing
name. I am sure those customers will buy more compilers than
I will, and anything which makes their compiler more popular
without undermining technical quality is fine with me.
Larry Kilgallen
P.S. Off topic ? Well, I guess I am saying that name changes
may be worthy of grousing on c.l.a, but they do _not_ constitute
a reasonable basis for avoiding Ada :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
@ 1996-12-09 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Craig Spannring @ 1996-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
>In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
>> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
>> > Spannring) wrote:
>>
>> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
>> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
>> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
>> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
>Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
>for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
>ClearCase CMS for crying out loud). The _personal_ version (which
>doesn't look too toy like either) is $245. As pointed out below, to
>get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
>looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
>what you get for the $600.00.
Note I said, "I'm being paid to do C++" and "toy to use at home". I
think that $595 is a very low price, but since my employer has no
interest in Ada I would only be able to use it for my own pet
projects. Since _I_ could only use it for playing at home, (nobody is
offering to pay me for Ada code), $595 could better be used for
upgrading my mountain bike, getting a new pair of skis, etc. Now if
someone were to offer to pay me to write Ada code I'd order a copy
before you could even blink.
A toy is something I want that I can't get my employer to buy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
@ 1996-12-10 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-12-11 0:00 ` Dave Wood
1996-12-20 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
8 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jon S Anthony @ 1996-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <58hgs4$s0e@news.structured.net> cts@alpinet.com (Craig Spannring) writes:
> jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
>
> >In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>
> >> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> >> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> >> > Spannring) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
> >> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
> >> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> >> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
>
> >Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
> >for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
> >ClearCase CMS for crying out loud). The _personal_ version (which
> >doesn't look too toy like either) is $245. As pointed out below, to
> >get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
> >looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
> >what you get for the $600.00.
>
> Note I said, "I'm being paid to do C++" and "toy to use at home". I
> think that $595 is a very low price, but since my employer has no
> interest in Ada I would only be able to use it for my own pet
> projects. Since _I_ could only use it for playing at home, (nobody is
> offering to pay me for Ada code), $595 could better be used for
> upgrading my mountain bike, getting a new pair of skis, etc. Now if
> someone were to offer to pay me to write Ada code I'd order a copy
> before you could even blink.
Fair enough. I mean I don't even _have_ a computer at home - can't
stand the things actually, ;^). But, if it is just to "fool around
with", then the personal edition should be fine. Of course, it's
probably just as likely that the $245 would be more fun spent on xxx
too. In fact, given this caveat I'm not convinced even a _free_
version would be "worth it".
> A toy is something I want that I can't get my employer to buy.
First rule in good domain analysis is to get the lexicon straight...:-|
/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
1996-12-10 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
@ 1996-12-11 0:00 ` Dave Wood
1996-12-20 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
8 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dave Wood @ 1996-12-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jon S Anthony wrote:
>
> In article <58hgs4$s0e@news.structured.net> cts@alpinet.com (Craig Spannring) writes:
>
> > jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> >
> > >> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> > >> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> > >> > Spannring) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
> > >> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
> > >> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> > >> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
> >
> > >Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
> > >for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
> > >ClearCase CMS for crying out loud). The _personal_ version (which
> > >doesn't look too toy like either) is $245. As pointed out below, to
> > >get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
> > >looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
> > >what you get for the $600.00.
> >
> > Note I said, "I'm being paid to do C++" and "toy to use at home". I
> > think that $595 is a very low price, but since my employer has no
> > interest in Ada I would only be able to use it for my own pet
> > projects. Since _I_ could only use it for playing at home, (nobody is
> > offering to pay me for Ada code), $595 could better be used for
> > upgrading my mountain bike, getting a new pair of skis, etc. Now if
> > someone were to offer to pay me to write Ada code I'd order a copy
> > before you could even blink.
>
> Fair enough. I mean I don't even _have_ a computer at home - can't
> stand the things actually, ;^). But, if it is just to "fool around
> with", then the personal edition should be fine. Of course, it's
> probably just as likely that the $245 would be more fun spent on xxx
> too. In fact, given this caveat I'm not convinced even a _free_
> version would be "worth it".
True enough. I recently bought a new PC and it came loaded with about
two dozen "free" CDs with games and such. I won't even spend the time
to install most of it - I hardly see my kids as it is. The last thing
I'm going to do in my spare time is spend an hour downloading an Ada
compiler at 28.8 just for the joy of compiling.
"Ada as a toy" is an interesting concept, probably reserved for the
kind of psycho engineers who work for Ada vendors.
(Just kidding, guys, really!!! You know I luv ya!!!)
-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com
p.s. By the way, you get a version of ObjectAda for free if
you buy Mike Feldman's book at your local bookstore.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
1996-12-11 0:00 ` Dave Wood
@ 1996-12-20 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
8 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Ted Dennison @ 1996-12-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Dave Wood wrote:
>
> True enough. I recently bought a new PC and it came loaded with about
> two dozen "free" CDs with games and such. I won't even spend the time
> to install most of it - I hardly see my kids as it is. The last thing
> I'm going to do in my spare time is spend an hour downloading an Ada
> compiler at 28.8 just for the joy of compiling.
>
...
> (Just kidding, guys, really!!! You know I luv ya!!!)
There's nothing stopping you from DOING SOMETHING ELSE while that one
hour download is taking place. If you like to sit and watch the progress
bar slowly grow, its no wonder your kids don't like to hang out with
you. :-)
--
T.E.D.
| Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.lmco.com |
| Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net |
| URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread