Re: Success: Ada versus C

[Arthur Schwarz <schwarza@gdls.com>]

RC wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> 
> Had Ada been around when C and Unix were developed, I'm sure it would
> have had a better head start.  

Ada 'was' around when C started, tho' in another form. The immediate
predecessor to Ada was Pascal. At the time that Pascal was introduced
it was immediately hailed as an innovation over existing languages and
was in general felt to be superior to it's competitors, Fortran and
Cobol. During the beginning 80's, fast, cheap, and relatively good
compilers for Pascal were available (ala Borland). Despite its
deficiencies, it was gradually being expanded in capability, supplanted
by other 'better' languages (Ada and Modula for two), and then it
died. I've heard reasons why. I don't understand them. But it died
as it appears that Ada might.


> 
> Ada started as a large, expensive project funded by a large, well funded
> end user.  There has been little reason for suppliers to introduce Ada
> as an inexpensive loss-leader.  

Cobol was started by DoD in the 60's. It is a widely successful language
and I believ to this day, more software is written and available in
Cobol than any other single computer languages. If I remember correctly,
the Communications of the ACM (or SIGPLAN) published a survey of 
languages used sometime during the 80's. At that time (if memory serves
me correctly - it really never does), Cobol programming exceeded 80%
of all programming done. I believe that a survey done in the 90's showed
that although it's lead was dropping, it still has a commanding lead.

So go figure. Ada lookalike languages die (Pascal) and DoD / Gov'n
funded projects don't. This is to say that it appears that for any
valid example there is an equally valid counter-example, and vice-
versa.

I don't mean to poke fun at you but I can't understand it either. I
do know that from a 'rabid supporter' for Ada in the 80's, I'm only
lukewarm now. I do find learning the language tortuous and compiling,
linking a real burden. For 'simple' projects it is seems undually 
complex. For long-term, large scale projects I believe the Ada
advocates, it is good. But very often, small inconsequential projects
done within a larger framework become major future efforts. Maybe
this is where Ada fails to have a 'draw'. Being geared to projects
which start large and continue, it is not able to attract projects
which start small and grow. I don't know, when I read the Ada news-
groups I see a lot of stridency for a viewpoint without many concessions
for success. So I personally don't see a large future for the language.

As a non-sequitor, when I tried to learn rather than just admire the
language (in the 80's) I had a great deal of difficulty. Being an
experienced (and arrogant) programmer, I really didn't want a tutorial
and didn't want to spend time with the LRM. I couldn't find books
which were not tutorial and I did find that the LRM was all but
impenetrable. In terms of C (now, not then), I use a book by Harbison
and Steele, "C, A Reference Manual". For me it is an unqualified
success. To this day I don't know of a comparable book in Ada.

My feeling is that it is time to stop congratulating ourselves. It is
time to develop an appreciation for our potential audience. The language
won't sell itself and strong advocacy is not the same as many and
enthusiastic user's. The articles that I see telling about Ada's
successes and its future seem to be a cry of desparation. "Why can't
people see the superiority of Ada over C/C++?". Good question. What's
the answer.

So go figure. One of the best languages of the times seems destined
for a footnote in history - used by the Government, abandoned by the
people.

(sorry for the speach).

art schwarz
aschwarz@acm.org