Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice

[Ken Mays <kenneth.l.mays@cpmx.saic.com>]

Actually, you're right. Ada95 has the advantage of being more
maintainable than C++. C++ is the commercial language of choice since
it is the most common language (not because it is the best language).
Many games and projects are written in C/C++ so its easier for many
companies to hire C programmers than Ada programmers. Graphics libraries
and others source code is easier to come by so that's why people howl
when you say "Ada is better." 

I remember when companies use to program games in Pascal and BASIC. If
someone really wants to debate how great Ada95 is, then lets do a test
with a utility like SendMail V8.8.6. We can convert it over to Ada95
code (there is a utility that can do this) and then fix the remaining
bugs in the code (if its too hard then rewrite it from scratch in Ada95
code). Actually, I would rather rewrite the code so don't I don't miss
someone else's bugs!

What I'm trying to point out is that many of us call ourselves software
engineers but won't prove what "software engineering" really is. MIT
students have maintained the GNU site for years but I don't see them
preaching about converting the GNU software to Ada. Most jobs will hire
C/C++ programmers in attempt to train them to Ada later..then it might
be Ada83 if they are unlucky.

Ada95 SHOULD be the commercial language of choice for Software
Engineering. As for the typical hacking of code and "quick and dirty"
programming, C/C++ will be around for quite a while. Its a shame, but
many companies will waiver using C or C++ over Ada95!!!!! Go tell Apple
to rewrite MacOS V8.0 in Ada95 and see what they will tell you. How
about IBM making Ada95 the langauge of choice for OS/2 programming?
How about MicroSoft stating that all future development will be in
Ada95? Does it sound far-fetched??? Time will tell.


Ken
SAIC
"You don't have to pay for college. Get an honorary degree!"

Robert Munck wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 12:17:07 -0500, Ken Mays
> <kenneth.l.mays@cpmx.saic.com> wrote:
> 
> >Its not so much as what language is better than any other language, its
> >what is the appropriate tool for the task. Ada95 works well with
> >embedded software projects.
> 
> and graphics applications,
> and financial/business programs,
> and scientific (heavy arithmetic) programs,
> and word processing,
> and operating systems, and etc. etc.
> 
> All of which I've done in both Ada and in the common-knowledge
> "appropriate" language for that genera (assembler, FORTRAN,
> COBOL, SNOBOL, Pascal/Modula, PL/S, etc).
> 
> >C/C++ works well with Unix programming and other types of work.
> 
> UNIX gives you so many problems with platform incompatability,
> unexpected side-effects from upgrades to the OS, compilers,
> and other programs, and general inconsistencies that you don't
> notice how expensive C/C++ make it is to debug, maintain, and
> upgrade your source code.
> 
> > Java works well for cross platform/Internet work.
> 
> But why bother, when you can use the Intermetrics Ada 95 to
> Java Virtual Machine to write code that runs in all the same
> conditions and doesn't have the problems of Java's C legacy?
> 
> >C++ is the commercial langauge of choice.
> 
> for those who haven't really made an informed choice, and
> for those who are doing coding rather than software engineering,
> and for those who are trading a quick-and-dirty release ASAP for
> horrible maintenance and upgrade headaches in the future.
> This may be the reason for the "flash-in-the-pan" nature of
> so many start-ups in our business; they get an initial product
> out fast in C++, but can't upgrade, add new programmers to the
> project, or even reduce the bug count because the code is
> unreadable.
> 
> (Btw, I liked COBOL when I was working on a large financial
> system in it, but couldn't stand to go back to it after I'd done
> a similar project in Ada.)
> 
> Bob Munck
> Mill Creek Systems LC