* RE: What ada 83 compiler is *best* @ 1998-12-03 0:00 Rick Thorne 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Gautier ` (5 more replies) 0 siblings, 6 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Roga Danar wrote: > What? If I am not mistaken DEC has distance itself from VAX. > Ada is continues to > be supported by many people throughout the world. Sure. If you want to spend your career programming in Sweden, have a nut, buddy. I'd rather stay here in Silicon Valley where the planet comes to the feeding frenzy. > If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them. *contemptuous chuckle* Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend? Check out the want ads. MY "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++. What statistical sampling do I need other than this? Yup, Ada IS a great language. I agree. The Edsel was a great car, too. How many people do you seeing driving them, let alone BUYING them? Look, too, at the Usenet news groups. Compare the traffic on comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*. The Ada newgroup is orders of magnitude smaller. Look at the journals. When's the last time Ada was of the cover of IEEE Software? Walk into Computer Literacy or any other book store carrying geek literature. What's the ratio of C++/Java books to Ada? It's easily orders of magnitude in difference. I realize a few people are riding the Ada legacy and making money. You're welcome to it. There are people pimping and selling crack to 12 year olds too. I don't want THAT money either, thank you. I'll continue making money elsewhere - and in technologies that have a future in both fun AND promising projects. > Since Ada is a great language and as many advantages and few drawbacks > compared > with the more popular languages like C/C++, Java, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol > etc... It > is only a matter of time and marketing that Ada is placed, rightfully, as the > language for the next millennium, IMHO. *gaffaw, snort, laugh out loud, wheeze* Pardon me, sir. I need to catch my breath. The only thing more pathetically funny to me than bad logic is bad prognostication. Thanx for making my day on BOTH counts. What utter nonsense. Your presumption that Ada has a great future because it's a great language is laughable. Why do I say this? Look at APL, PL1, and Simula. All are great languages - and as dead as Ada WILL BE in the next 20 years. If Ada has any future at all it's only because of its legacy. I do realize that Ada has SOME popularity in Europe, but it's use in the US is driven almost purely by the DoD Ada Initiative. The Ada Initiative has been (correctly) identified as a mistake, and Ada is now in its death throws in the US. Like it or not, sir, the US drives the world markets, and Ada's un-popularity in American commercial markets AND its un-popularity among US software developers means its days are numbered. Believe me. I'm a former Ada man myself, and I see it dying rapidly even in DoD circles. I'm currently submitting a proposal to NASA in behalf of a local company and the government managers know all too well that NO ONE wants Ada any more. They don't even ask about it! Time and marketing?!?! I have two words for this: puh-lease. How are time and marketing going to help Ada? Take a look at the language technologies that have absolutely left Ada in the dust: Java, C++, Perl, Python, etc. Why? Simple: TIME AND MARKETING. Java and C++ already have the markets that Ada missed, and those markets are too happy with Java and C++ to open their doors to an experiment that's already failed. You're welcome to continue fooling yourself all you like, sir, but Java and C++ already own the US development scene, and Ada isn't going to crack the nut. NO WAY! Name me a large commercial US software developer who's changing to Ada! Name 20! Even if you can, for every one you can name I can name 20 that laugh at the notion of Ada overrunning the US software development world. I work in that world; believe me, I know. I abandoned Ada years ago and I haven't been out of work a DAY because of it, nor will I be out of work for the forseeable future. I work in Silicon Valley as a software consultant and I promise you, sir, Ada isn't on the horizon of anyone - ANYONE - I regard as a client, and for all the right reasons. I agree - Ada's a great language. So what? GREATNESS hasn't stopped other ideas from self-destructing. Look at BetaMax, Dvorak keyboards, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, and the literally thousands of computer languages that have come and gone in our world. In a way, I admire your strange devotion and naive hopefullness, but I'm on my way to retiring young and I can tell that I don't have Ada to thank for it! > -- Michael Smith > Persident, AlphaSoft, Inc. ^^^^^^ Well, Mr. "Persident", I think you could add a spell checker to your obviously long list of needed technical upgrades... -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-03 0:00 What ada 83 compiler is *best* Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Gautier 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Gautier @ 1998-12-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rick.thorne > > If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them. > Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend? Check out the want ads. MY > "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are > literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++. For every job opening for high-quality restaurants there are dozen for McDonalds. Will you conclude high-quality restaurants are disappearing ? Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows). It's a good thing. Why does Ada still exists, then ? Why are Ada95 compilers beeing developed ? It's surely because of some advantages. E.g: - the most bugs are found at compile time in Ada (a fraction of a second) and during debugging sessions in Fortran, C, C++ (it may take hours); - an Ada source is easy to read. The bad point for Ada is that these two advantages concerns a small part of software industry. - it's a threat for a programmer hired by a company: an Ada program is too early finished and debugged; once the guy has been sacked, the source can be maintained and reworked without him! - since the main stream software industry lives from selling buggy updates to buggy programs, Ada is absolutely not the language to use ;-) ! -- Gautier ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Gautier @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Pat Rogers ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch>, Gautier <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch> wrote: Hello, > For every job opening for high-quality restaurants there are dozen for > McDonalds. Will you conclude high-quality restaurants are disappearing ? Are you actually submitting to me this as a refutation of my point? I was sincerely trying to generate some CRITICAL discussion here. High-quality restaurants and fast-food joints operate in separate domains, sir. McDonalds caters to people on the go, kids, etc. It is cheap, quick, and good enough for people running for their lives. High-quality restaurants are for couples, friends, etc. who want to take their time, enjoy each other's companionship, and truly savor a meal. These are two completely different worlds. I wouldn't take my wife to McDonald's on our anniversary, nor would I take her to Le Papillion while we're rushing around Christmas shopping. Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain. They're all used for large system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. Which you choose depends on the development environment you want. If you want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++ because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities. If you want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in portability and UI development, use Java. If you really don't care about performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete government standards, use Ada. Your call. > Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows). > It's a good thing. ...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that Ada hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known universe? If so, you haven't read much about the intent of the language you seem to love so much! I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard the government has tried to bully on us. C++/Java and others have considerable strengths of their own that make Ada unnecessary. YES - unnecessary. C++ and Java are perfect forms of protest. They were developed by a handful of people (not a government bureaucracy like Ada was) AND they're incredible languages, whether or not YOU agree. > Why does Ada still exists, then ? Why are Ada95 compilers beeing developed ? > It's surely because of some advantages. E.g: > - the most bugs are found at compile time in Ada (a fraction of a second) and > during debugging sessions in Fortran, C, C++ (it may take hours); Can you possibly be implying that C++/C compilers don't find bugs, and the Ada somehow produces code without runtime errors by virtue of superior compiler technology? To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply ludicrous. > - an Ada source is easy to read. Again, puh-lease. Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code. And again - to make the statement that Ada by virtue of its own merits always produced easy to read code isn't even worth discussing. I've been there. I know too well to be patient with this argument. There as another point in all this, sir: easy-to-read code isn't that answer to one-tenth of the problems that plague software development. Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and software architecture & design. As a programming language, Ada doesn't begin to address these issues except in the most obtuse way. If we've learned anything from Ada, we've learned that languages AREN'T at the heart of the software engineering crisis. My advice: before you make the public statement that Ada solves software engineering's nightmares because the compilers are great and it produces easy to read source code, I suggest you read "No Silver Bullet" by Fredrick Brooks. Ada is just a programming language. Languages are NOT at the heart of the software engineering crisis. They are peripheral co-conspirators at best. > The bad point for Ada is that these two advantages concerns a small part of > software industry. > - it's a threat for a programmer hired by a company: an Ada program is > too early finished and debugged; once the guy has been sacked, the source > can be maintained and reworked without him! AND AGAIN - are you actually implying that there's no Ada code out there that wasn't years late, $$millions over budget, and virtually unmaintainable? If you believe this, I suggest you read some of the GAO reports written in the last 10 years on this topic. Ever wonder why the Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD? The reason is somple: Ada code isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone ELSE's code. > - since the main stream software industry lives from selling buggy updates to > buggy programs, Ada is absolutely not the language to use ;-) ! Cute closure, and I'm certain the Ada worshippers are laughing with you. The rest of us are only too happy with our own stuff to simply smile at your pointless jingoism and return to technologies with a future. Interesting how few of us regard Ada as one of them! Rick -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Chris Morgan ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I'll ignore most of the drivel; however, some needs answering with fact. Rick Thorne wrote in message ... <snip> >Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain. They're all used for large >system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. >Which you choose depends on the development environment you want. If you >want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++ >because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities. I assume you're talking about C++ user-defined allocators, here. Ada can do that too. Easily. >If you want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in >portability and UI development, use Java. Same domain, hum? I quote the header comment that Sun puts on the software they distribute: * Copyright (c) 1994-1997 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. * * <snip legalese> * * This software is not designed or intended for use in on-line control of * aircraft, air traffic, aircraft navigation or aircraft communications; or in * the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear * facility. Licensee represents and warrants that it will not use or * redistribute the Software for such purposes. */ <snip> >Ever wonder why the >Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD? The reason is somple: Ada code >isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone >ELSE's code. Simply false. See hard facts at: http://www.adaresource.org/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/ http://www.adaresource.org/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <74hk55$6t5$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote: > Rick Thorne wrote in message ... > > >Ever wonder why the > >Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD? The reason is somple: Ada > code > >isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than > anyone > >ELSE's code. > > Simply false. See hard facts at: > > http://www.adaresource.org/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/ > > http://www.adaresource.org/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html Personally, I think it's cute when someone touts an advocacy web page as "hard fact." This is like Ralph Reed calling the 0.5% of the American population who are members of the Christian Coalition "the mainstream", or the tobacco industry reports refuting the link between smoking and lung cancer. Honestly, Pat, this kind of logical fallacy is more appropriate in alt.aliens.visitors. I've seen these reports, and I've seen others as well. I remain unconvinced, and I remain so simply because I've seen the disasters in plain ol' crappy Ada coding. Fine - Ada's easier to read than C++ (tho not as easy to read as Java, in my opinion). Fine, Ada has a "true" standard. Fine, Ada's the programming language of choice in Sweden. As a veteran in BOTH Ada and C++/Java, I can tell you I've seen ugliness in both, and beauty in both, and I remain utterly unconvinced that Ada has enough advantages over ANY major language technology to emerge as anything but a declining has-been. You're doing well in Ada, are you? Good for you. Your market is shrinking in the US - like it or not. I'm doing great in C++/Java myself, and my market's growing - like it or not. I hope we both enjoy a happy, early retirement. I truly do. I'll quote Fredrick Brooks again: "Ada is just a programming language." It doesn't fix the central problems in the software engineering crisis: requirements definition and software architecture and design. As such, I'm still waiting for a convincing argument to make Ada part of my future. Ain't heard one yet! -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote in message ... >In article <74hk55$6t5$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" ><progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote: > >> Rick Thorne wrote in message ... >> >> >Ever wonder why the >> >Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD? The reason is somple: Ada >> code >> >isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than >> anyone >> >ELSE's code. >> >> Simply false. See hard facts at: >> >> http://www.adaresource.org/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/ >> >> http://www.adaresource.org/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html > >Personally, I think it's cute when someone touts an advocacy web page as >"hard fact." This is like Ralph Reed calling the 0.5% of the American >population who are members of the Christian Coalition "the mainstream", or >the tobacco industry reports refuting the link between smoking and lung >cancer. Honestly, Pat, this kind of logical fallacy is more appropriate >in alt.aliens.visitors. When presented with fact, you spew forth vacuities. Of course the studies are prominently displayed at an advocacy page. That in no way diminishes their content, unless you didn't really bother to read them. If you were as familiar with their content as you purport, you would note that the studies were largely NOT funded by the DoD. This is especially true of the Zeigler C/Ada results (the second URL provided), which has nothing to do with the government whatsoever and shows quantitatively that Ada is more productive than C. I'm not surprised you had difficulty with Ada. It requires thought. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <74jhct$e2m$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote: > I'm not surprised you had difficulty with Ada. It requires thought. Do you know what this is, Pat? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX It's a dull whetstone for sharpening your rapier whit. Please use it: believe me, anything will help. If you'll excuse me, I've found rational people who are ANSWERING my questions. Without regret, I do hereby killfile thee... Smuggly, -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote in message ... >In article <74jhct$e2m$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" >If you'll excuse me, I've found rational people who are ANSWERING my >questions. Without regret, I do hereby killfile thee... I note that in another post you say: "I thank you all for your responses and apologize for some of my tone. I may have come off as an arrogant brat, but I do like and respect you all. I've been trying to get answers to my very important career choice questions, and since the I Ching was unclear I decided to try the direct approach. I've found this in life: if you want a response, ask a question. If you want and answer, piss someone off. It's contrary to me nature, but it DOES work." When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and silliness rather than discuss the data. A killfile for the answers you don't like seems a strange way to learn. >Smuggly, Indeed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote: > When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and > silliness rather than discuss the data. A killfile for the answers > you don't like seems a strange way to learn. I'd answer you, but I've killfiled you. Remember?!? ;-) I'm truly sorry about the attitude. Let me conclude this discussion as follows. 1) You haven't provided concrete facts. You identified studies on an obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater productivity. The Institute for Creation Reseach offers "hard core evidence" of Scientific Creationism too. Ever wonder why 95% of PhDs in biological sciences poo-poo these findings? Simple: these people aren't scientists; they're advocates POSING as scientists. When AFA produces a study showing that Ada's a better language, it's like Dow-Corning doing research on the safety of silicon breast implants. You'd be out of your mind to not take the data *cum grano salis*. 2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to say I think they're all a joke? Why? Think on your training as an engineer. To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments. To conduct an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments, identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed. Additionally, you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing the data. Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle identical. My belief: if Ada developers ACTUALLY DO beat the C++ers in all areas (quality, development time, etc.), it's less because of the source code and much more because of the system engineering involved. Most Ada organization (at least in the US) are government controlled in some way (go to a Lockheed-Martin CDR/PDR if you don't believe this), and the systems engineering is very tight. The Ada people tend to get better requirements that the C++ by virtue of their organizational domains, and the design is usually less brittle for the same reasons. My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me to believe them. For all the reasons I've stated above, I think they're uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND I think the studies are aggressively skewed by advocates on whatever side. I've actually read an AFA study that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a grain of salt! Finally: my alien statement is valid for this reason: if you go into an alt.alien.XXX newsgroup and ask for proof, they send you to a web site. The only thing that proves is this: logical fallacies, 'specially those involving personal issues and prejudices, are alive and well. Respectfully, -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marc A. Criley 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote in message ... >In article <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" ><progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote: > >> When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and >> silliness rather than discuss the data. A killfile for the answers >> you don't like seems a strange way to learn. > >I'd answer you, but I've killfiled you. Remember?!? > >;-) I was wondering where it would go. :-) >I'm truly sorry about the attitude. Let me conclude this discussion as follows. I apologize for allowing myself to be annoyed. Life's too short for acrimony. >1) You haven't provided concrete facts. You identified studies on an >obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater productivity. The sponsor of the web page isn't the issue. I said "hard data" because the studies contain data rather than opinion. If guilt by location is used, why have the Web? Why shouldn't an advocacy page shout out the news? Considering the source is of course important, especially when *opinions* are being offered. But in this case the source is not the advocacy group, but rather, in most of the studies cited, external non-governmental entities. That is especially the case for the Zeigler Ada/C productity results. <snip> >2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to >say I think they're all a joke? Why? Think on your training as an >engineer. To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to >set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments. To conduct >an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments, >identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed. Additionally, >you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing >the data. Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle >identical. <snip> >My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me to >believe them. For all the reasons I've stated above, I think they're >uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND I think the studies are aggressively >skewed by advocates on whatever side. I've actually read an AFA study >that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a grain of >salt! That argument can probably be made for one of the studies I cited, but (IMHO) not both. That is why I wished you had taken a look at the Ada/C paper by Steve Zeigler of Rational (when they were Verdix). It fits your requirements rather well, as the paper indicates: not Ada advocates (they were die-hard C programmers), whole lifecycle, long term, etc. Why not have a look rather than dismiss it out-of-hand? If you find factual fault with it, great -- that would help everybody move forward. >Respectfully, Returned in kind, --- Pat Rogers Training & Development in: http://www.classwide.com Deadline Schedulability Analysis progers@acm.org Software Fault Tolerance (281)648-3165 Real-Time/OO Languages ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marc A. Criley 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > > 1) You haven't provided concrete facts. You identified studies on an > obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater productivity. > The Institute for Creation Reseach offers "hard core evidence" of > Scientific Creationism too. Ever wonder why 95% of PhDs in biological > sciences poo-poo these findings? Simple: these people aren't scientists; > they're advocates POSING as scientists. When AFA produces a study showing > that Ada's a better language, it's like Dow-Corning doing research on the > safety of silicon breast implants. You'd be out of your mind to not take > the data *cum grano salis*. > > 2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to > say I think they're all a joke? Why? Think on your training as an > engineer. To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to > set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments. To conduct > an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments, > identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed. Additionally, > you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing > the data. Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle > identical. My belief: if Ada developers ACTUALLY DO beat the C++ers in > all areas (quality, development time, etc.), it's less because of the > source code and much more because of the system engineering involved. > Most Ada organization (at least in the US) are government controlled in > some way (go to a Lockheed-Martin CDR/PDR if you don't believe this), and > the systems engineering is very tight. The Ada people tend to get better > requirements that the C++ by virtue of their organizational domains, and > the design is usually less brittle for the same reasons. > > My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me to > believe them. For all the reasons I've stated above, I think they're > uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND I think the studies are aggressively > skewed by advocates on whatever side. I've actually read an AFA study > that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a grain of > salt! > Let me suggest one brief productivity study summary made by a highly-respected programming language non-partisan--Software Productivity Research's Capers Jones. In a letter to the editor published in the October 1998 issue of Crosstalk, Jones was responding to an earlier article regarding SLOCs and metrics. While advocating function points over SLOCs as a metrics basis was the motivation for the letter, he did briefly summarize the results of a comparative language study. "Elizabeth Starrett's article, "Measurement 101," Crosstalk, August 1998, was interesting and well written, but it left out a critical point. Metrics based on "source lines of code" move backward when comparing software applications written in different programming languages. The version in the low-level language will look better than the version in the high-level language. "In an article aimed at metrics novices, it is very important to point out some of the known hazards of software metrics. The fact that lines of code can't be used to measure economic productivity is definitely a known hazard that should be stressed. "In a comparative study of 10 versions of the same period using 10 different programming languages (Ada 83, Ada95, C, C++, Objective C, PL/I, Assembler, CHILL, Pascal, and Smalltalk), the lines of code metric failed to show either the highest productivity or best quality. Overall, the lowest cost and fewest defects were found in Smalltalk and Ada95, but the lines of code metric favored assembler. Function points correctly identified Smalltalk and Ada95 as being superior, but lines of code failed to do this. " (http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/1998/oct/letters.html) While I do not know the details of the referenced study, given the reputation of Capers Jones and the nature of his business, I believe one can trust the validity of his conclusions. > > Respectfully, > > -- > ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? > ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? > ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? > ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? > ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? -- Marc A. Criley Chief Software Architect Lockheed Martin M&DS marc.a.criley@lmco.com Phone: (610) 354-7861 Fax : (610) 354-7308 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marc A. Criley @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Matthew Heaney @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > 2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to > say I think they're all a joke? Why? Think on your training as an > engineer. To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to > set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments. To conduct > an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments, > identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed. Additionally, > you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing > the data. Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle > identical. My belief: if Ada developers ACTUALLY DO beat the C++ers in > all areas (quality, development time, etc.), it's less because of the > source code and much more because of the system engineering involved. > Most Ada organization (at least in the US) are government controlled in > some way (go to a Lockheed-Martin CDR/PDR if you don't believe this), and > the systems engineering is very tight. The Ada people tend to get better > requirements that the C++ by virtue of their organizational domains, and > the design is usually less brittle for the same reasons. Actually, that was very close to the conditions of the Zeigler study, in which the same programmers wrote the same application in both Ada and C. No, Ada is not going to solve the software crisis. It's only a programming language, just one more tool in a programmer's tool-box. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Gautier.DeMontmollin ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain. They're all used for large > system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. > Which you choose depends on the development environment you want. If you > want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++ > because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities. Yes, and incredible opportunities to shoot yourself in every reference to a pointer to a virtual base class template of your foot. I speak as someone with plenty of foot injuries in this area. If you > want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in > portability and UI development, use Java. Nice language, but lacks templates and still has severe performance problems. Ada is portable via recompilation instead of interpretation, a deliberate design decision. > If you really don't care about > performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete > government standards, use Ada. Your call. Complete twaddle. If you compare the performance of C and Ada both compiled with gcc based compilers you will generally see equivalent performance with equivalent code, there is no inherent speed cost with Ada. If you chose to turn on run-time checks with the Ada compiler you can, and therefore pay a price in speed in return for greater reliability. The fact that there is no equivalent facility in C, or C++ is simply a point against those languages. There are at least two or three Ada vendors with excellent support in my own personal experience. There are also C++ vendors with rather poor support unless you cough up big bucks. As for obscure and obsolete standards, an ISO standard for a language is a large win and not in the least obscure. It's also not a government standard any more. When Java or C++ standards are ratified they too become ISO standards not Sun or AT&T property. > > > Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows). > > It's a good thing. > > ...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that Ada > hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known universe? > If so, you haven't read much about the intent of the language you seem to > love so much! I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in > commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard > the government has tried to bully on us. The government didn't try to bully anyone into using Ada. Requiring it's use on government contracts is hardly bullying. Additionally Ada has standardised interfaces to other languages (at least the ones that are themselves standardised) to encourage reuse of existing libraries). C++/Java and others have > considerable strengths of their own that make Ada unnecessary. YES - > unnecessary. C++ and Java are perfect forms of protest. They were > developed by a handful of people (not a government bureaucracy like Ada > was) AND they're incredible languages, whether or not YOU agree. Ada was not developed by a bureaucracy, again you reveal your ignorance and prejudice here as you lecture others. In both cases (Ada83 and Ada95) the language definition was developed by small highly-focused design teams. For example in Ada95 although there was a large amount of consensus building and requirement gathering, there was a strong lead from a chief architect who, in the end, had final say. In fact the original Ada lent some inspiration to C++, and it has often been said that semantically Java is closer to Ada than C or C++ for obvious reasons. > Can you possibly be implying that C++/C compilers don't find bugs, and the > Ada somehow produces code without runtime errors by virtue of superior > compiler technology? > > To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or > technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply > ludicrous. True - you've built up the other poster's statement into an easy to rebut straw man, impressing nobody. There are some factual aspects of the difference between Ada and, say, C++ that make the range of mistakes catchable by an Ada compiler far greater than a C++ compiler. Aliasing analysis, array bounds checking, dangling pointer prevention are major wins, but even the simple fact of a clean compilation model with no macro-processing helps a lot. > Again, puh-lease. Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code. And > again - to make the statement that Ada by virtue of its own merits always > produced easy to read code isn't even worth discussing. I've been there. > I know too well to be patient with this argument. Bad Ada code is possible, after all we are discussing fairly complete languages, but good Ada code _is_ very very readable, even to a non-Ada programmer. Good C++ is less readable to a non-C++ programmer in my opinion. I think this has to do with it being less encoded, there is closer to a 1-1 between word and concept. Additionally C++ has many more unpleasant warts such as the over use of the word static, the polluted messy global namespace inherited from C etc. > > There as another point in all this, sir: easy-to-read code isn't that > answer to one-tenth of the problems that plague software development. > Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and > software architecture & design. True. > As a programming language, Ada doesn't begin to address these issues > except in the most obtuse way. If we've learned anything from Ada, > we've learned that languages AREN'T at the heart of the software > engineering crisis. False. Ada as part of a well-controlled software engineering process is a big win. If you don't start with a good process you will have problems no matter what language you use. > > My advice: before you make the public statement that Ada solves software > engineering's nightmares because the compilers are great and it produces > easy to read source code, I suggest you read "No Silver Bullet" by > Fredrick Brooks. Ada is just a programming language. Languages are NOT > at the heart of the software engineering crisis. They are peripheral > co-conspirators at best. The designers of Ada work with the assumption that the basics such as source code control/configuration management, requirements traceability, testing etc are also addressed. Without all that stuff too you are correct, Ada is as unhelpful as a high-performance car where there are no roads. > AND AGAIN - are you actually implying that there's no Ada code out there > that wasn't years late, $$millions over budget, and virtually > unmaintainable? If you believe this, I suggest you read some of the GAO > reports written in the last 10 years on this topic. Ever wonder why the > Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD? The reason is somple: Ada code > isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone > ELSE's code. Well the word is that the C++ zealots aren't doing any better at all in all those projects who leaped the fence. > Cute closure, and I'm certain the Ada worshippers are laughing with you. > The rest of us are only too happy with our own stuff to simply smile at > your pointless jingoism and return to technologies with a future. > Interesting how few of us regard Ada as one of them! From the posting you've made on this thread, not much you have to say about Java, C++ or Ada will be at all interesting to anyone. I haven't worked with Ada for a living for four years (now doing C++, Java, Perl etc) so it may be you think "we" share your views. Well I don't. Chris -- Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com> http://www.mihalis.net NP:- Angus Dei - AC/DC do choral music ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` David Gillon ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87k903u4oj.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com>, Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > From the posting you've made on this thread, not much you have to say > about Java, C++ or Ada will be at all interesting to anyone. I haven't > worked with Ada for a living for four years (now doing C++, Java, Perl > etc) so it may be you think "we" share your views. Well I don't. To Chris: Honestly, this is irrelevent. Whether or not we as a handful of people in the profession like Ada has little to do with the trends. The trend is away from Ada and toward Java and C++ by orders of magnitude. That's where the jobs are. I know that a few people are doing well in Ada. There are also a few making money in Jovial as well. Good for them. I'd rather be where I can count on a future, and Ada's not that place for me. In truth, I like Ada too. I'm a former Ada man myself, as I believe I mentioned. There are great things about the language, and since we're all aware of them there's no point in going into them. I also prefer Beta to VHS. I also prefer Borland OWL GUI libraries to MFC. Guess what: They're all nowhere, so there's no point in pursuing them. I really do think Ada's headed that-a way, and I don't want to be there at 50 looking for an opening at 7-11 'cuz I made bad choices now. To all: My question to the news group was this: does Ada have a future? My answer has been: Rick, you need to lay off the coffee. Thank you, really - in your obtuse arrogance, you couldn't have made the point more clear! Rick -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` David Gillon 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: David Gillon @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > My question to the news group was this: does Ada have a future? Yes. More specifically, in the general arena probably only in niche markets, but in the safety critical arena there really isn't any language that has been shown to be superior -- Java deliberately opts out of safety critical, C++ has well known questionmarks over it's suitability, Eiffel is possibly the only new contender on the market, but needs a good safety critical demo. Language popularity scores precisely zero when detemining the best language to keep 300+ people safe on an ETOPS flight that's 180 minutes from the nearest airport. I choose to work in safety critical avionics, I believe Ada is the safest language for this particular area of programming, therefore I will continue to advocate (and expect) its use. As for continuing usage, think about maintenance if nothing else. The 777 probably has thirty years of production left (cf 747, 30yo and still in active development), and twenty years service life for individual airframes is normal -- that takes me well past retirement, thanks.... -- David Gillon MAv Rochester ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` David Gillon @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366D4B3B.504810FB@gecm.com>, David Gillon <David.Gillon@gecm.com> wrote: > Rick Thorne wrote: > > > My question to the news group was this: does Ada have a future? > > Yes. More specifically, in the general arena probably only in niche > markets, but in the safety critical arena there really isn't any > language that has been shown to be superior [-] Another excellent response, and I thank you, David. Like Marin, you've identified the utility of Ada in a niche market, and you've both shown me that it's stable in its niche (see my reply to Marin). Thanx. -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` David Gillon @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <to.reply-0812980710010001@129.197.97.40> to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > Honestly, this is irrelevent. Whether or not we as a handful of people in > the profession like Ada has little to do with the trends. Then let's look where the real trends are. When someone asks "Is XXX a dead language, they are not at all concerned with whether or not there is a small cabal of programmers still using the language, they are concerned with the answers to three questions: 1) Are compilers available for popular and currently available hardware and operating systems? 2) Is the language itself maintained? 3) Will compilers be available for future hardware and software releases? Let's put a few languages through those filters: Ada95 Algol68 C C++ Cobol Fortran Java Pascal PL/I 1) Yes Few Yes Most Most Some Most Some Few 2) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Soon No No 3) Yes No Yes Most Most Few Yes Few Few The only things I see as controversial in these answers are the mosts under C++ targets, which reflect experience in the embedded market, and the most and soon under Java. If you are willing to accept g++ as a viable C++ implementation, it is almost as widely available as Ada. But then I would have to extend the same "courtesy" to Pascal and Fortran, where it is IMHO not true. But in any case, the reality is that in most cases if you want widely portable code, you use Ada or C. (If it needs to run on 8-bit targets, you probably are forced to C, although there are some "8-bit" chips with Ada compilers available.) If you are targeting just data processing environments, then COBOL is an alternative. Similarly for desktop computing and C++, or number crunching and Fortran. Pascal, PL/I and Algol all were nice languages once upon a time, and there are still compilers for some popular platforms. But as choices for major projects they are as dead as IPL-V or Autocoder. Will C and Ada continue to be the only possible choices for widespread applications in the foreseeable future? With the exceptions noted above, probably. Some people think that C++ and Java will be potential choices in the near future, but I just don't see it in the embedded market. On the flip side, how long will C and Ada continue to be valid choices? I can't see a time when they won't be. There is enough momentum behind both that when new hardware is announced there will almost always be working compilers for one or both languages available. If not, both will probably be available before beta hardware. (As it happens I do know of a couple chips without a good C compiler, but the only new chips I can think in the past ten years without an available Ada compiler are some members of the TI TMS320C family. Chips without a good C++ compiler? Dozens. Without a good Java compiler? Weeelll, I could say all of them, but there do seem to be some good Java COMPILERS showing up. I just haven't tried any out.) -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EACHUS.98Dec8163253@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > In article <to.reply-0812980710010001@129.197.97.40> to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > > > Honestly, this is irrelevent. Whether or not we as a handful of people in > > the profession like Ada has little to do with the trends. > > Then let's look where the real trends are. When someone asks "Is > XXX a dead language, they are not at all concerned with whether or not > there is a small cabal of programmers still using the language, they > are concerned with the answers to three questions: > > 1) Are compilers available for popular and currently available hardware > and operating systems? > > 2) Is the language itself maintained? > > 3) Will compilers be available for future hardware and software > releases? > > Let's put a few languages through those filters: > > Ada95 Algol68 C C++ Cobol Fortran Java Pascal PL/I > 1) Yes Few Yes Most Most Some Most Some Few > 2) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Soon No No > 3) Yes No Yes Most Most Few Yes Few Few I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for: MVS Popular, Currently available OS400 Popular, Currently available HP-MPE Currently available VAX/VMS Popular, Currently available Macintosh 68K Popular Alpha NT Currently available Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems dubious to me. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1998Dec8.174032.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for: > > MVS Popular, Currently available > OS400 Popular, Currently available > HP-MPE Currently available > VAX/VMS Popular, Currently available > Macintosh 68K Popular > Alpha NT Currently available > > Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems dubious to me. The MVS and OS400 entries seem a fair point. The issue here of course is simply lack of interest. What after all is interesting in fact is not whether there are compilers for all machines, but rather whether lack of compilers is ever an issue. Lack of Ada 95 compilers on MVS and OS400 is simply not an issue, since no one is interested at the current time. HP-MPE is a fairly small niche, but this is vaguely fair VAX/VMS and Max/68K are obsolete machines, and clearly you will not find compilers for all obsolete machines. These are after all machines which were pretty much obsolete at the time that Ada 95 came into existence. Yes, we all know poor Larry has to play with VAX'es for ever, but this is hardly relevant to the general scene. And the 68K Mac is truly a dead dog at this stage, popular, I don't even think that is fair at this stage. Alpha NT is definitely an example of a machine that does have some small niche of usage, and lacks an Ada 95 compiler. It would in fact be easy to port GNAT to this target, and we even demonstrated this port three years ago, but there simply has been no interest. Again, I think the interesting thing here is that we are now at a stage where lack of compilers is not a significant factor in Ada 95 usage. Yes, there are some machines which still don't have Ada 95 support, but this reflects more of a lack of significant interest in Ada 95 on that target than anything else. Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <74kuja$72s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes: > In article <1998Dec8.174032.1@eisner>, > Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: >> I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for: >> >> MVS Popular, Currently available >> OS400 Popular, Currently available >> HP-MPE Currently available >> VAX/VMS Popular, Currently available >> Macintosh 68K Popular >> Alpha NT Currently available >> >> Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems > dubious to me. > > > The MVS and OS400 entries seem a fair point. The issue > here of course is simply lack of interest. What after all > is interesting in fact is not whether there are compilers > for all machines, but rather whether lack of compilers is > ever an issue. Lack of Ada 95 compilers on MVS and OS400 > is simply not an issue, since no one is interested at the > current time. <snip> > Again, I think the interesting thing here is that we are > now at a stage where lack of compilers is not a significant > factor in Ada 95 usage. Yes, there are some machines which > still don't have Ada 95 support, but this reflects more of > a lack of significant interest in Ada 95 on that target > than anything else. I do not disagree about the extent to which a lack of compilers affects Ada popularity. I do not disagree that lack of Ada 95 usage affects the availability of compilers. The statement with which I was disagreeing was that Ada95 was available on "all popular and currently available" operating systems. Ada advocacy should be tempered by accuracy so as to distinguish it from the rest of the computer industry. :-) Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1998Dec9.092835.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: >> I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for: >> MVS Popular, Currently available >> OS400 Popular, Currently available >> HP-MPE Currently available >> VAX/VMS Popular, Currently available >> Macintosh 68K Popular >> Alpha NT Currently available >> Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems > dubious to me. > I do not disagree about the extent to which a lack of compilers > affects Ada popularity. I do not disagree that lack of Ada 95 usage > affects the availability of compilers. The statement with which I > was disagreeing was that Ada95 was available on "all popular and > currently available" operating systems. Ada advocacy should be > tempered by accuracy so as to distinguish it from the rest of the > computer industry. :-) Short answer--I disagree completely with your characterization of any of these products with the possible exception of MVS, as popular and currently available. Perhaps the right characterization is "once popular, still somewhat available." Of course, with the possible exception of OS400, there were several validated Ada 83 compilers for every machine on your list. In fact I am supporting projects that use several of them. The reality is that for something like VAX/VMS, there is no great pressure to switch existing Ada 83 code to Ada 95, but there is a need to maintain the existing base. So there is a continued demand for Ada 83 on the VAX, but no visible Ada 95 demand. New VMS starts use Alphas. And since I mentioned Alphas, Alpha NT is a very special case. There are good Alpha VMS compilers, and there are good x86 NT compilers, in many cases versions of the same compiler, so a port would be trivial. In fact I believe GNAT actually had such a version at one point. Is the lack of demand for that product due to a lack of demand for NT on Alpha, or due to a lack of demand for Ada 95? My best guess is that most Alpha NT machines are used as servers for NT networks where the desktop machines are Pentium, etc., based. So the Ada compilers on those servers are actually run on and targeted to the desktop. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EACHUS.98Dec10113707@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > In article <1998Dec9.092835.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > > >> I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for: > > >> MVS Popular, Currently available > >> OS400 Popular, Currently available > >> HP-MPE Currently available > >> VAX/VMS Popular, Currently available > >> Macintosh 68K Popular > >> Alpha NT Currently available > > >> Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems > > dubious to me. > > > I do not disagree about the extent to which a lack of compilers > > affects Ada popularity. I do not disagree that lack of Ada 95 usage > > affects the availability of compilers. The statement with which I > > was disagreeing was that Ada95 was available on "all popular and > > currently available" operating systems. Ada advocacy should be > > tempered by accuracy so as to distinguish it from the rest of the > > computer industry. :-) > > Short answer--I disagree completely with your characterization of > any of these products with the possible exception of MVS, as popular > and currently available. Perhaps the right characterization is "once > popular, still somewhat available." I do not know what "somewhat available" means -- I can buy a machine new from its original manufacturer or I cannot. Only 68K Macintosh fails that test. I do not see how you could possibly view OS400 as "non popular". It is the mainstay of many small businesses, and has some vertical markets totally locked up due to ISV loyalty to OS400. For that matter, I do not see how your admit MVS as only a "possible exception". A pedantic resort to the Latin would say "popular" means "home computer", but surely that is not what any of us mean in discussing the computer industry. > Of course, with the possible exception of OS400, there were several > validated Ada 83 compilers for every machine on your list. That is immaterial to my criticism of the statement regarding Ada95 availability. I use Ada83 quite happily, but incorrect advocacy statements regarding Ada95 availability do Ada no good. (As a side issue, I would like to know more about the Ada 83 compiler for HP-MPE.) > And since I mentioned Alphas, Alpha NT is a very special case. > There are good Alpha VMS compilers, and there are good x86 NT > compilers, in many cases versions of the same compiler, so a port > would be trivial. In fact I believe GNAT actually had such a version > at one point. Is the lack of demand for that product due to a lack > of demand for NT on Alpha, or due to a lack of demand for Ada 95? Again, that is irrelevant to my complaint about incorrect advocacy claims. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` David Gillon 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-09 0:00 ` John McCabe 2 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Matthew Heaney @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > In truth, I like Ada too. I'm a former Ada man myself, as I believe I > mentioned. There are great things about the language, and since we're all > aware of them there's no point in going into them. I also prefer Beta to > VHS. This is actually a specious comparison. Though Beta had superior picture quality, it had only half (or a third?) of the playing time of VHS. The market decided that playing time was more important, and so chose VHS. (Credit goes to Robert Dewar for pointing this out in a previous post.) Arguments about Beta format being "better" usually omit the contribution of playing time in the decision to chose VHS. So I don't buy the argument that Ada has "failed" even though it is "better." I would say that Ada is not as popular for a few reasons, among them: 1) Tony Hoare severely criticized Ada in his Turing Award lecture, saying (literally) that the future of mankind was at stake if we were to use Ada, and that Ada was "doomed to succeed." Who's gonna argue with Hoare? If he said it, it must be true, right? In retrospect, his criticisms seem a little, well, dated. One of the things he said would cause life on Earth to end was using exceptions! Although exceptions can be misused, that's true of all language features, and nowadays, everyone seems to think exceptions are a Pretty Good Idea. People sometimes "forget" to mention that Hoare's lecture was directed at an early version of the language. Ada wasn't standardized until 1983, and Hoare's speech took place in 1980. The language was in fact made simpler between its 1980 draft and its 1983 final version. 2) The world wasn't ready for another large language. Parnas, Hoare, Dijkstra were all critical of the language, noting especially its size, and when guys like that talk, people listen. I suspect (perhaps I am re-writing history) that Hoare's speech influenced the ACM canvassers, who *rejected* the language during the ballot, citing its size as a concern. People (like P. J. Plaugher) sometimes lump together "large" languages, putting Ada in the same bucket as PL/I and Algol 68. I don't think this is a fair comparison, because Ada is a consistent language, reflecting the vision of its architect (even if you don't happen to like that vision). In his paper "If C++ is the answer, what is the question?", Plaugher gave a lame criticism of Ada, explaining that programmers could nest packages to any level they wanted. Huh? I've seen Ada put in the imperative group of C and Fortran, explaining the fact that Ada doesn't use distinguished-receiver syntax as proof of its emphasis on procedural programming. Even Brown University professor Peter Wegner seems to ignore the fact that Ada has abstract data types, labeling Ada merely "object-based" because it "uses packages as the unit of decomposition." Huh? 3) Most programmers think that getting run-time errors, and then using a debugger to find and fix those errors, is the normal way to program. They aren't aware that many of those errors can be detected by the compiler. And those that are aware, don't necessarily like that, because repairing bugs is challenging, and, well, sorta fun. You are not giving a programmer good news when you tell him that he'll get fewer bugs, and that he'll have to do less debugging. Basically, we still live in the dark ages of programming, not unlike the time engineers were learning about boiler technology by figuring out why a boiler exploded, scalding people to death (remember the Therac-25?). People will probably have to die in order for "software engineering" to be a true engineering profession, instead of the buzzword that it is today. Sad but true. 4) Early compilers were way, way too expensive, and compilers were (and still are today) very difficult to implement. As a language designer, Jean Ichbiah didn't concentrate enough on language implementation issues. (By contrast, Tucker is a compiler-writer's language designer. Suffice to say, things would be very different had Red, the version proffered by Ben Brosgol then at Intermetrics, been chosen.) The obvious repercussion of this is that there weren't any cheap compilers (say, in the US$50 - US$100 range) that you could run on your PC at home, so no one could experiment with the language. Ada essentially missed the boat in the PC revolution, and so was never able to develop the grass-roots support that Pascal and C had (because those languages were relatively easy to implement, and were therefore much more readily available). Again, we see that there are many issues that factor into a decision to purchase a compiler (just like as for buying tapes for your VCR). You can tell the client about how he's going to have fewer bugs (superior picture quality), but forget to mention that the compiler will cost US$3000 (has less playing time). The market chose availability and cost of compilers over quality of language. This might not be a very smart decision, because the cost of human labor to find and fix bugs is way, way, way more expensive than any compiler, but since we don't use metrics in this industry, decision-makers don't now that. 5) There is an entire industry devoted to selling tools to repair the defects in the C language (tools for finding memory leaks, type errors, etc). Guys like Les Hatton have a vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are, because their livelihood depends on people using error-prone languages. Those people just aren't going to stand on the sidelines while you tell programmers that if they use Ada, they can throw way all their other tools too. 6) Ada didn't have type extension and dynamic binding, and so missed the boat on the object technology revolution. You just weren't cool enough in the 80's, if you didn't use an object-oriented language. Why wasn't Ada83 object oriented? It depends on who you ask. According to Bertrand Meyer (peut-etre il a parle a Jean?), Jean --who had been writing Simula compilers, and was thus familiar with the paradigm-- thought that dynamic binding would have been too radical for the conservative DoD, who after all were the ones commissioning the language, and so he figured they wouldn't go for it. According to others, Jean in fact didn't want type extension and dynamic binding, because he didn't think it was necessary. (Although, ironically, it was Jean who did push for inheritance of operations. In retrospect, I think this turned out to be a bad language design decision, because very, very few Ada programmers --even longtime ones-- really understand how the inheritance model of Ada83 works, and therefore don't use it. One "programmer" who did understand this model was Tucker Taft, who made this the cornerstone of the mechanism to add type extension to the language.) You have to understand the climate of the times. Ada was largely a reaction to languages like Fortran. They [the commissioners -- the Dod] wanted once and for all to determine everything at compile time, so you could eliminate errors like the parameters of an invocation of a subprogram not agreeing with the parameters of the declaration. Certainly not an unreasonable desire! At that time, Smalltalk was the popular object-oriented language, and method lookup really was slow, but only because the language was interpreted. Sadly, many people then and even today overlook this, and conclude that "object-oriented programming makes your program run slow," which squelched the idea for inclusion in a deterministic, real-time language. (Example: at SIGAda *this* year (1998) someone got up to the microphone to ask the presenter a question, explaining that he did real-time systems, and he wanted to know if he should be nervous about object-oriented programming! Some rumors just die hard.) Of course we know now that dynamic binding is nearly as efficient as static binding. The Smalltalk legacy lives on, however, and reuse via inheritance came to be seen as the Measure Of All Good Things. But there is a dark side to this, called the "fragile base class" problem. Deep inheritance hierarchies create a lot of coupling between abstractions, creating a tension between reuse and information hiding. An abstraction is basically exposing its representation by announcing that it inherits from another abstraction, and we should all know the kind of maintenance headaches you have when you don't practice information hiding. Thankfully, the tide seems to be turning, and people are beginning to realize that type extension is not so great after all, and that "mere" aggregation is often preferable. Deep inheritance hierarchies as a re-use mechanism may be fine for by-reference languages like Smalltalk and Eiffel, but leaf-classes in a by-value language like Ada95 or C++ become VERY SENSITIVE to the representation of the ancestor classes, which means massive re-compilations are often required any time you touch a base class. (This is the sort of problem we had for other reasons in Ada83, which motivated the inclusion of child packages in Ada95.) If you are an Ada95 or C++ programmer who programs "the pure object-oriented way" by creating deep inheritance hierarchies, then YOU ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE. You're going to spend all your time just compiling. Funny story: A new programmer just started using Ada, and posted a question to this newsgroup. He had been reading in Mike Feldman's introductory book about the abstract data types in Ada, and remarked that ADTs reminded him of object-oriented programming. He wanted to know what the difference was between the two. Good question. Guys like Pete Coad who write things like "Ada is not object-oriented. PERIOD." miss the whole point, which is that the important thing is language support for user-defined abstractions. Ada83 had that, and then some. If you use a "pure" language like Smalltalk or Eiffel, your entire world is inheritance hierarchies, and so you think any language without deep inheritance hierarchies must be lacking. (Aside: I hate the term "pure object-oriented," because it makes a lot of naive programmers think that "pure" must be "better." This is the same reason I don't like how Wegner created a hierarchy from "object-based" to "class-based" to "object-oriented," because programmers are going to think "object-oriented" is better than "object-based." These shouldn't be in a hierarchy, because they are just alternate implementation techniques; one is better than another only to the extent that it helps you solve a problem. Just look at the singleton pattern. In a "pure" language, you have to jump through hoops to create the singleton, which is an object-based abstraction.) What also happened during the 80's is that the term "object-oriented" changed meaning. It used to refer a data-centric style of programming that emphasized abstraction, and what you do to an abstraction, in contrast to a procedural style, which emphasized strictly what you do. Given that definition, people were happy to call Ada an object-oriented language. For whatever reason (probably due to Wegner), the term object-oriented came to mean language support for type extension and dynamic binding, and if your language didn't have that, then you couldn't call it object-oriented. And so Smalltalk programmers like Pete Coad could criticize the Ada for not being truly "object-oriented." But this is like saying you can only call them "jeans" if they have a zipper fly. If your blue cotton pants made by Levi have only a button fly, and not a zipper, then they're not really jeans. I hope you see how ridiculous this nomenclature issue is. Object-oriented is a paradigm, a way of thinking. Ada83 had direct language support for modeling in terms of abstractions, which is the sine qua non of object-objected programming. I like having type extension and dynamic binding in the Ada95, but you'd be wrong to think that this changes my style of programming much. The most important additions to the language were better support for real-time programming, and hierarchical name-spaces (child packages). The tagged type stuff is just frosting on the cake. I'm reading a great book now called Why People Believe Weird Things, by Micheal Shermer, in which the author explains what rational thinking is, and how skepticism is a process. Basically, people believe something because that want to, not because of any scientific arguments you make. There are guys out there who dislike Ada, but they do so because they want to, not because of any rational analysis of its merits or flaws. Sometimes even their arguments are factually incorrect, like saying that "Ada was designed by committee," ignoring the fact that Jean vetoed language design arguments that were 12-to-1 against him. It's not unlike creationists who explain the "fact" that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (No, it does not, as any book on freshman physics will tell you.) I've explained the reasons Ada why I think is not as popular as C++, and I'd like to hope that it will convince Ada's detractors that Ada isn't so bad after all. But as Robert Dewar pointed out, a person who has made an irrational decision probably isn't going to be swayed by rational arguments! Read Shermer, and you'll understand. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-09 0:00 ` John McCabe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m3hfv6xqqu.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>, Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> writes: > 2) The world wasn't ready for another large language. Parnas, Hoare, > Dijkstra were all critical of the language, noting especially its > size, and when guys like that talk, people listen. I doubt that more than 5% of today's C programmers recognize and of those names. Would anyone argue that the percentage is higher for decision-making managers ? Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` John McCabe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: John McCabe @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote: <..snip..> >This is actually a specious comparison. Though Beta had superior picture >quality, it had only half (or a third?) of the playing time of VHS. The >market decided that playing time was more important, and so chose VHS. > >(Credit goes to Robert Dewar for pointing this out in a previous post.) > >Arguments about Beta format being "better" usually omit the contribution >of playing time in the decision to chose VHS. Off-topic I know, but I had a Betamax video recorder and when that format started to fizzle out, we were using 3h15min tapes compared to the then VHS limit of 3 hours. 4 hours were possible but hadn't really hit the market. Best Regards John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Gautier.DeMontmollin 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 4 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Gautier.DeMontmollin @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [about McDo etc.] > Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain. They're all used for large > system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. They may have domains in common. > Which you choose depends on the development environment you want. If you > want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++ > because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities. Incredible but not portable (including with the same compiler on the same machine if you change memory model). It's a general problem with macro-assemblers. > If you > want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in > portability and UI development, use Java. Or Ada. Recent experience: a port from Ada83 on a platform to Ada95 on another of a commercial n*100_000 lines program - tens of packages - needed to change 5 lines (usage of Ada95 math libs). Can you so easily port Java to another compiler and platform (real question! I'm interested in a serious answer) ? > If you really don't care about > performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete > government standards, use Ada. Your call. Did you try to compare an Ada project compiled by GNAT with cross-package inlining on, suppress_all, -O2 options, with its C++ counterpart where *.o files are just linked together ? Again a serious comparision would be welcome! [about government, DoD, bureaucrats, other baddies] Old story! Are the C++ or Java specifications less bureaucratic ? Was Ada invented by DoD bureaucrats ? >> - the most bugs are found at compile time in Ada (a fraction of a second) and >> during debugging sessions in Fortran, C, C++ (it may take hours); > Can you possibly be implying that C++/C compilers don't find bugs, and the > Ada somehow produces code without runtime errors by virtue of superior > compiler technology? I don't. But a good usage of strong typing and subtypes I catch range errors even at compile time, which, accepted by other languages would sum up to _months_ of debugging (in my current project) - not to speak about languages which don't differentiate integers and pointers... > To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or > technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply > ludicrous. virtual bug-free: no; real few-bugs: yes. >> - an Ada source is easy to read. > Again, puh-lease. Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code. Was it yours ;-) ? At least it indicates it was readable enough to allow you to _see_ it was bad code ! There are competitions to determine what some C expressions could _mean_ ! (.......) > Ada is just a programming language. Really ? Won't it program for you ? > Languages are NOT > at the heart of the software engineering crisis. They are peripheral > co-conspirators at best. Of course the main problem is human. But I'm afraid you're underestimating the co-conspirators! (.......) Why don't you want to accept that people find they might be more efficient by programming in some language instead of another ? Or even enjoy programming in that language ! Happy Christmas meal at Le Papillon and don't get so nervous about these programming languages wars! -- Gautier ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Gautier.DeMontmollin @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 4 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Roga Danar @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > In article <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch>, Gautier > <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch> wrote: > > Hello, > > If you want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++ > because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities. Hmm. How about Ada representation specifications? You must admit that is a pretty close to the machine. > If you really don't care about > performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete > government standards, use Ada. Your call Performance? Turn off the checks and I think you may find it comparable. As for standards, I don't think your saying that the Ada95 standard is obsolete. I would agree that some of the government standards on software development are though. > . > > > Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows). > > It's a good thing. > > ...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that Ada > hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known universe? Ada has a international standard, yes. Not a US industry one though as you have pointed out. As for imposing standards, What sort of Ada language standards do you mean? If you mean DOD stating that a project "shall" use Ada then I understand and agree. > I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in > commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard > the government has tried to bully on us. I could not agree more. This is the best point you have made. A language choice should be made on real-world constraints. How much will I have to pay the programmers? How many tools are there for a given platform or implementation? Is the language by it's definition "safe" to use in critical systems? > C++/Java and others have > considerable strengths of their own that make Ada unnecessary. YES - > unnecessary. I could not agree less. It is the weaknesses of these languages that Ada addresses which make Ada (or perhaps the next language to come) very necessary. I don't think you will win this particular argument, IMHO. > C++ and Java are perfect forms of protest. They were > developed by a handful of people (not a government bureaucracy like Ada > was) AND they're incredible languages, whether or not YOU agree. Sun's control over Java has left many with a warm and fuzzy non bureaucratic feeling. Would you not agree? > > To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or > technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply > ludicrous. Well just about any absolute statement is "ludicrous". I think the point here is that by the *definition* of the language, Ada will produce fewer run-time errors then say C/C++ or Fortran, period. Not that any give program will not have any bugs just because it's Ada. It's just a nice to have your range checks, and the like, performed for you up front. > > > - an Ada source is easy to read. > > Again, puh-lease. Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code. My experience is that some of the best and worst I have seen is written in Ada. The worse from a C programmer writing in Ada. The best from very talented software engineer. This is most likely the same for any language. > Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and > software architecture & design. As a programming language, Ada doesn't > begin to address these issues except in the most obtuse way. I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying C/C++, Java address the serious problems you mentioned above in a precise way? > ..., I suggest you read "No Silver Bullet" by > Fredrick Brooks. Thanks. > Ada is just a programming language. Languages are NOT > at the heart of the software engineering crisis. They are peripheral > co-conspirators at best. Yes but any language that is as modern and feature rich as Ada could not hurt the problem, IMHO > > > The bad point for Ada is that these two advantages concerns a small part of > > software industry. > > > - it's a threat for a programmer hired by a company: an Ada program is > > too early finished and debugged; once the guy has been sacked, the source > > can be maintained and reworked without him! > > AND AGAIN - are you actually implying that there's no Ada code out there > that wasn't years late, $$millions over budget, and virtually > unmaintainable? But since "Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and software architecture & design". Getting requirement from government client at times is the most difficult thing I have had to do in my career. Ada surely can not be to blamed for over budget projects. It's not that programmers produced maintainable Ada code because there working with Ada. The point, I think, here is that the it *easier* to produce code which is more maintainable, because Ada seems to be more readable for one. Don't you think a human programmer can more clearly understand This_Is_My_Object better than, say, "ThisIsMyObject"? Not that you prohibated from using underscores in C++ code. > If you believe this, I suggest you read some of the GAO > reports written in the last 10 years on this topic. Ever wonder why the > Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD? The reason is somple: Ada code > isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone > ELSE's code. > So the government can't come up with a good standards or endorse a marketable programming language but they can say why Ada use does not get you anywhere. Okay. ;-> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Roga Danar @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Roga Danar wrote in message <366D68CD.AFC12CAF@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>... >Rick Thorne wrote: > >> I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in >> commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard >> the government has tried to bully on us. > > I could not agree more. This is the best point you have made. A language >choice should be made on real-world constraints. How much will I have to pay the >programmers? How many tools are there for a given platform or implementation? Is >the language by it's definition "safe" to use in critical systems? While I certainly agree that a reasoned choice should be made, based upon facts and not fad, I cannot agree that the government tried to "bully" their contractors. The policy was "use Ada or make a good argument for why not (i.e., make the case for a waiver)". That is certainly a reasonable approach for a customer to take -- their providers were using over 450 different languages and dialects. A similar situation would be if a given building were wired for 450 different power levels; a phone system using 450 different protocols; and on and on. Trying to get things under control was a good idea. That doesn't mean Ada was/is perfect, or that other languages could not be justified, but this idea of Big Brother trying to "bully" their contractors is just silliness. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Roga Danar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Roga Danar @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Pat Rogers wrote: > Roga Danar wrote in message > <366D68CD.AFC12CAF@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>... > >Rick Thorne wrote: > > > >> I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in > >> commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a > standard > >> the government has tried to bully on us. > > > > I could not agree more. This is the best point you have made. > A language > >choice should be made on real-world constraints. How much will I > have to pay the > >programmers? How many tools are there for a given platform or > implementation? Is > >the language by it's definition "safe" to use in critical systems? > > While I certainly agree that a reasoned choice should be made, based > upon facts and not fad, I cannot agree that the government tried to > "bully" their contractors. The policy was "use Ada or make a good > argument for why not (i.e., make the case for a waiver)". That is > certainly a reasonable approach for a customer to take -- their > providers were using over 450 different languages and dialects. A > similar situation would be if a given building were wired for 450 > different power levels; a phone system using 450 different > protocols; and on and on. Trying to get things under control was a > good idea. That doesn't mean Ada was/is perfect, or that other > languages could not be justified, but this idea of Big Brother > trying to "bully" their contractors is just silliness. I should have been more clear. I have work much of my career under contracts for DoD and have never felt any trying to bully me or the project. In fact, if anything there was pressure to go to C++ a couple of years ago on a navy project I was on. Sorry for the confusion. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in > commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a > standard the government has tried to bully on us. This is a misunderstanding of the whole idea behind the HOLWG (high-order language working group) that was the driving force behind the creation of Ada. They were charged with reducing the number of languages used on DoD projects. At the time the HOLWG was formed the number of different (high-level not assembly or machine) languages used was over 800. Today I would guess that the number in maintained systems is between 50 and 100, and, in systems in active development, less than a dozen. (Let's see, Ada, C, C++, Fortran, Cobol, SQL, Lisp, Perl, HTML, and a few others, so it could be over a dozen. Depends on how you count scripting and special purpose languages.) Now the HOLWG originally concluded that the optimum number of HLLs was one, but anyone working on a major Ada (or other language) development will tell you that while 90% of the development is in Ada, some is in shell scripts, SQL, and C, where that is the best choice for that particular piece of the job. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Roga Danar @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr ` (2 more replies) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Matthew Heaney @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: >> Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, >> Windows). It's a good thing. > > ...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that > Ada hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known > universe? If so, you haven't read much about the intent of the > language you seem to love so much! I think one of the reasons Ada has > failed so miserably in commercial US software development is precisely > BECAUSE it is a standard the government has tried to bully on us. I should have added this to my list of reasons Ada isn't as popular as C++: 6) The mandate. I don't think the government was trying to "bully us" with the mandate, they were just trying to manage the process. But by mandating that Ada be used for all systems --even those for which it wasn't necessarily suitable-- they diluted the value of the language in those systems where it really is an advantage to use Ada. If you didn't like the policy, that's fine, but don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. At the time, the US DoD was the number one consumer of software, and they had huge software costs that were only growing. They had to get their costs down (hundreds of languages were being used), and the success rate up (many systems weren't even being delivered), and one way they chose to do that was to commission the design of programming language that the DoD could use as their standard language for building real-time, embedded systems. I think their intentions were good, but the management of that process wasn't so good, and many programmers share the sentiment that the gov't was trying to ram Ada down their throats. I don't blame you or any other programmer for being offended by this policy, but don't blame Ada the language. I myself used to scream "I can do anything I need to in Fortran. Why do I need Ada?" But as I started to use Ada over the next few weeks and months, I gradually began to understand what the language was buying me. Judge the language based on its own merits, separately from any opinion you may have about how the DoD commissions software systems. If the gov't does something stupid, why blame Ada? As someone pointed out a few years ago, Ada is a large woman, but once you get your arms around her, you learn to really love her. > C++/Java and others have considerable strengths of their own that make > Ada unnecessary. YES - unnecessary. C++ and Java are perfect forms > of protest. They were developed by a handful of people (not a > government bureaucracy like Ada was) AND they're incredible languages, > whether or not YOU agree. This is a common misconception. The language was commissioned (paid for) by the DoD, but it certainly wasn't designed by a "government bureaucracy." Ada was designed by Jean Ichbiah, then of Honeywell/Bull, with input from a group of reviewers comprising members of industry and academia. But be careful not to construe this as "design by committee." As John Goodenough pointed out in HOPL-II, Jean vetoed committed decisions that were 12-to-1 against him. (Another story: I met Jean Sammet at this year's SIGAda conference, and I asked her about her experience during the Ada design process. She told me that she disagreed with many of Ichbiah's decisions, and still thinks he was wrong.) So the moral of the story is, don't blame the gov't for putative errors in the language. If you want someone to blame, then blame Jean Ichbiah. (But first, instead of a vague criticism like "the language is flawed," state explicitly what your specific problems with the language are. Then we'll go over your list one item at a time.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-12-09 0:00 ` P.S. Norby 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m367blyi5l.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>, Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote: > (Another story: I met Jean Sammet at this year's SIGAda > conference, and > I asked her about her experience during the Ada design > process. She > told me that she disagreed with many of Ichbiah's > decisions, and still > thinks he was wrong.) For the record, as someone who was involved in the Ada 83 design process, I do not remember Jean Sammett having any significant technical comments on the language design at any time, so if she disagreed with technical decisions that Jean was making (decisions by the way that were very thoroughly reviewed by a large number of people), she did not make these disagreements known to anyone else at the time. Jean certainly had a lot of important input and ideas with respect to non-technical aspects of Ada deployment, but I think you may have misunderstood what she was telling you! Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` P.S. Norby 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: P.S. Norby @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthew Heaney wrote: > > I should have added this to my list of reasons Ada isn't as popular as C++: > > 6) The mandate. > I don't think the government was trying to "bully us" with the mandate, > they were just trying to manage the process. > > I think their intentions were good, but the management of that process > wasn't so good, and many programmers share the sentiment that the gov't > was trying to ram Ada down their throats. > > As someone pointed out a few years ago, Ada is a large woman, but once > you get your arms around her, you learn to really love her. > I sometimes think all the ex-hippie types don't want to use Ada because of its association with DoD, and all the curmudgeon types don't want to use Ada because it's named after a woman (and she'd not that big.. look at the pictures ;-) ). How do I put half of a smiley on that statement? -- P.S. Norby "No excuses. No embarrasment. No apologies... Ada -- the most trusted and powerful programming language on earth, or in space." -- S. Tucker Taft \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// (Speaking only for myself) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-12-09 0:00 ` P.S. Norby @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthew Heaney wrote: > > > I think their intentions were good, but the management of that process > wasn't so good, and many programmers share the sentiment that the gov't > was trying to ram Ada down their throats. > Lets keep in mind one factor: To a large extent "The Mandate" succeeded in its primary goal. The U.S. Government {Read: "Yours and my tax dollars" :-)} is no longer supporting 400-some-odd squirly programming languages that were custom developed along with the processors/systems they ran on. The Mandate did get the developers to stop looking at building/supporting their own languages and either a) use Ada or b) Select something "off the shelf" and justify it. Remember that years ago, the guys who are today screaming that they can only use C/C++ were the same guys who were screaming that C/Fortran/Etc. were impossible to use on their custom little embedded board so they *had* to go develop their own compiler for their own language or The Whole World Will Come To An End! What they were really saying was this: "I enjoy writing compilers. Let me give you a bunch of bad reasons why I can't possibly use a 'standard' language." What they are saying today is "I like using C/C++. Let me give you a bunch of bad reasons why I can't possibly use Ada." {Parenthetical note: The only good excuse for "Why I can't use Ada and have to use C" that I've heard/used is this: "I have a C compiler for this Whozits Processor Board that came with the board. There is no Ada compiler and a port would cost too much/take too long/not have the whole kitten kaboodle of support tools I've got with the C compiler that came with this board."} The world doesn't really change much, does it? :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 Ph: 561.796.8997 Fx: 561.796.4669 "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again." -- TV listing for the Wizard of Oz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-11 0:00 ` dewarr 0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366E97F8.776355C4@pwfl.com> Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes: > {Parenthetical note: The only good excuse for "Why I can't use Ada and > have to use C" that I've heard/used is this: "I have a C compiler for > this Whozits Processor Board that came with the board. There is no Ada > compiler and a port would cost too much/take too long/not have the whole > kitten kaboodle of support tools I've got with the C compiler that came > with this board."} How many times have I heard this, then turned around with a list of validated Ada compilers for that board, often with more than one for every RTOS under consideration. The main exceptions were Intel x86 boards without x87 chips, and TMS320C2x boards. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Tucker Taft 1998-12-11 0:00 ` dewarr 1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > In article <366E97F8.776355C4@pwfl.com> Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes: > > > {Parenthetical note: The only good excuse for "Why I can't use Ada and > > have to use C" that I've heard/used is this: "I have a C compiler for > > this Whozits Processor Board that came with the board. There is no Ada > > compiler and a port would cost too much/take too long/not have the whole > > kitten kaboodle of support tools I've got with the C compiler that came > > with this board."} > > How many times have I heard this, then turned around with a list > of validated Ada compilers for that board, often with more than one > for every RTOS under consideration. > > The main exceptions were Intel x86 boards without x87 chips, and > TMS320C2x boards. > -- > I was thinking more along the lines of some of the small controller cards you can buy which are supplied with a C compiler and PC based loading/eeprom-programming toolkit. Z-World is a good example where you can buy one of their Z180 based boards with a development environment for a few hundred bucks. Sure, someone *might* have a cross-compiler targeting a Z180, but how much does it cost? Will it generate linked images that will be compatible with the Z-World loader, eeprom burner and debugger? Will you have to cobble some kind of development environment & tools together to get the job done? At what point have I spent more money and wasted more time trying to use Ada to gain whatever benefits it offers than is economically justified? If I can buy the board & development environment (in C) for $300-$400 and the programming job is going to take 2 or 3 months, it's just not worth the $20,000 or so I'd have to pay someone to provide an Ada port to the Z180. Not to mention all the headaches & uncertainty about if it is going to work with the rest of the environment. We recently did a small rocket control that was based on some flavor of 68HC16 processor. It was built into an engine control that normally operates a Dodge Neon. It was a proof of concept kind of job which wasn't going to hang around very long. We pretty much did the job in assembler and utilized some available home grown software with an emulator pod & it's supplied software. I imagine we could have come up with a way to do it in Ada, but the job was over in such a short span of time and was on such a tight budget that it didn't make much sense to try to go find an Ada compiler, etc. when we pretty much had the action covered with what was at hand. (Do you know of a port of Ada to a 68HC16 that generates pure code, produces S-records and IEEE symbol tables? It has to generate really efficient code, but if it does, we might be able to use it in the next go-around.) You get to use an RTOS? Some guys have all the luck! ;-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 Ph: 561.796.8997 Fx: 561.796.4669 ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.*** "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again." -- TV listing for the Wizard of Oz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Tucker Taft 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Tucker Taft @ 1998-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic (condicma@bogon.pwfl.com) wrote: : I was thinking more along the lines of some of the small controller : cards you can buy which are supplied with a C compiler and PC based : loading/eeprom-programming toolkit. : ... : ... (Do you know of a port of Ada to a 68HC16 : that generates pure code, produces S-records and IEEE symbol tables? It : has to generate really efficient code, but if it does, we might be able : to use it in the next go-around.) For this sort of market, we have a version of our Ada 95 front end which generates optimized, readable ANSI C as its intermediate language, and depends only on the standard C implementation of setjmp/longjmp to implement exceptions, tasking, abort, and ATC. We include #line directives in the generated C so that a normal C debugger will show the Ada source rather than the intermediate C source when debugging. Let us know if this technology might be of interest... : You get to use an RTOS? Some guys have all the luck! ;-) : MDC : -- : Marin David Condic : Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis : United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines : M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 : Ph: 561.796.8997 Fx: 561.796.4669 : ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.*** -- -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Burlington, MA USA An AverStar Company ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-11 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-12-14 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1998-12-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EACHUS.98Dec10115116@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote: > > How many times have I heard this, then turned around > with a list > of validated Ada compilers for that board, often with > more than one > for every RTOS under consideration. > > The main exceptions were Intel x86 boards without x87 > chips, and > TMS320C2x boards. Are you talking Ada 83 here? I guess so since x86 without x87 is more contemporary with Ada 83. In that case it should be pointed out that ALL Alsys cross-products came with a full IEEE floating-point simulator (I wrote it :-) that allowed operation without hardware floating point. Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-11 0:00 ` dewarr @ 1998-12-14 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <74q94e$pbd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes: > Are you talking Ada 83 here? I guess so since x86 without > x87 is more contemporary with Ada 83. In that case it > should be pointed out that ALL Alsys cross-products came > with a full IEEE floating-point simulator (I wrote it :-) > that allowed operation without hardware floating point. Agreed and understood. Unfortunately, the issue was validated Ada (83) compilers. There were at least two cases I know of where the decision was to require an additional validation without the (optional) FP chip instead of just allowing all code that required floating point to be generated assuming FP hardware. One was the Desktop III contract. (I think that is the right Roman numeral.) Support for desktop machines without floating point processors added more to the contract cost than could possibly have been saved by buying machines without the FP chips, and I doubt that any machines without FP chips were ever bought under the contract--except for testing. This isn't/wasn't/shouldn't be an Ada issue, but it was seen as one. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* RE: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-03 0:00 What ada 83 compiler is *best* Rick Thorne 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Gautier @ 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-03 0:00 ` marc j bejerano ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <to.reply-0312980902120001@129.197.97.40>, to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > Look, too, at the Usenet news groups. Compare the traffic on > comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*. The Ada newgroup > is orders of magnitude smaller. comp.lang.ada is of a size where one can keep up with all posts. But I do not understand the merit of choosing a language just because the trouble calls are more voluminous. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-03 0:00 What ada 83 compiler is *best* Rick Thorne 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Gautier 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-03 0:00 ` marc j bejerano 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: marc j bejerano @ 1998-12-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > > Roga Danar wrote: > > > What? If I am not mistaken DEC has distance itself from VAX. > > Ada is continues to > > be supported by many people throughout the world. > > Sure. If you want to spend your career programming in Sweden, have a nut, > buddy. I'd rather stay here in Silicon Valley where the planet comes to > the feeding frenzy. Or anywhere that embedded development is taking place... > > If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them. > > *contemptuous chuckle* > > Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend? Check out the want ads. MY > "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are > literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++. What statistical > sampling do I need other than this? Yup, Ada IS a great language. I > agree. The Edsel was a great car, too. How many people do you seeing > driving them, let alone BUYING them? Yes, and millions of lines of VB code are written daily (hmmm, technically, they're drag-n-dropped daily). So what. Just because the herd is stampeding in one direction doesn't mean that there isn't ANY development in Ada. From my experience, most Ada jobs are not advertised in the Times classified but, rather, are filtered through recruiters who know where to look for Ada developers (www.adahome.com et.al.) > Look, too, at the Usenet news groups. Compare the traffic on > comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*. The Ada newgroup > is orders of magnitude smaller. Look at the journals. When's the last > time Ada was of the cover of IEEE Software? Walk into Computer Literacy > or any other book store carrying geek literature. What's the ratio of > C++/Java books to Ada? It's easily orders of magnitude in difference. Using this inane logic one could surmise that Ada programmers don't ask as many stupid and off-topic questions as C/C++ and Java programmers since, when reading comp.lang.ada I rarely find anything that is off topic whereas when reading the aforementioned newsgroups there are literally dozens of off-topic conversations going on that have nothing to do with programming. > I realize a few people are riding the Ada legacy and making money. You're > welcome to it. There are people pimping and selling crack to 12 year olds > too. I don't want THAT money either, thank you. I'll continue making > money elsewhere - and in technologies that have a future in both fun AND > promising projects. The last three contracts I've worked on were anything but legacy. True, they were all embedded systems but then that's where Ada's strength lies. > > Since Ada is a great language and as many advantages and few drawbacks > > compared > > with the more popular languages like C/C++, Java, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol > > etc... It > > is only a matter of time and marketing that Ada is placed, rightfully, as the > > language for the next millennium, IMHO. > > *gaffaw, snort, laugh out loud, wheeze* Pardon me, sir. I need to catch > my breath. The only thing more pathetically funny to me than bad logic is > bad prognostication. Thanx for making my day on BOTH counts. > > What utter nonsense. Your presumption that Ada has a great future because > it's a great language is laughable. Why do I say this? Look at APL, PL1, > and Simula. All are great languages - and as dead as Ada WILL BE in the > next 20 years. If Ada has any future at all it's only because of its > legacy. I do realize that Ada has SOME popularity in Europe, but it's use > in the US is driven almost purely by the DoD Ada Initiative. The Ada > Initiative has been (correctly) identified as a mistake, and Ada is now in > its death throws in the US. Like it or not, sir, the US drives the world > markets, and Ada's un-popularity in American commercial markets AND its > un-popularity among US software developers means its days are numbered. > Believe me. I'm a former Ada man myself, and I see it dying rapidly even > in DoD circles. I'm currently submitting a proposal to NASA in behalf of > a local company and the government managers know all too well that NO ONE > wants Ada any more. They don't even ask about it! Possibly true. Since I'm currently working at a large corporation that develops avionics systems I would have to disagree with this assessment. All new development is still done in Ada. Most managers who don't want to hear about Ada are usually the ones with little to no good experiences with Ada projects (this is not uncommon in other languages either). > Time and marketing?!?! I have two words for this: puh-lease. How are > time and marketing going to help Ada? Take a look at the language > technologies that have absolutely left Ada in the dust: Java, C++, Perl, > Python, etc. Why? Simple: TIME AND MARKETING. Java and C++ already have > the markets that Ada missed, and those markets are too happy with Java and > C++ to open their doors to an experiment that's already failed. You're > welcome to continue fooling yourself all you like, sir, but Java and C++ > already own the US development scene, and Ada isn't going to crack the > nut. NO WAY! Name me a large commercial US software developer who's > changing to Ada! Name 20! Even if you can, for every one you can name I > can name 20 that laugh at the notion of Ada overrunning the US software > development world. I work in that world; believe me, I know. I abandoned > Ada years ago and I haven't been out of work a DAY because of it, nor will > I be out of work for the forseeable future. I haven't abandoned Ada and I've been working without a break/layover for over 8 years. I do, however, agree that Ada is a niche language and will never (possibly) be "the language for the next millenium." > I work in Silicon Valley as a software consultant and I promise you, sir, > Ada isn't on the horizon of anyone - ANYONE - I regard as a client, and > for all the right reasons. I agree - Ada's a great language. So what? > GREATNESS hasn't stopped other ideas from self-destructing. Look at > BetaMax, Dvorak keyboards, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, and the > literally thousands of computer languages that have come and gone in our > world. In a way, I admire your strange devotion and naive hopefullness, > but I'm on my way to retiring young and I can tell that I don't have Ada > to thank for it! True. Quality does not a successful product or language make (hell, if it did, Windows wouldn't be as wildly popular as it is). Personally, fluency in many programming languages should be the goal of every programmer (at least 2 languages). This knowledge can only help someone design systems and applications as every language offers a different set of features and trade-offs. How long would it have taken C++ to get templates, exceptions, and tasking (okay, it's usually just a library or API call) if it weren't for Ada (which has has all these features longer than C++ has)? I still do not forsee C++ getting tasking (or multi-threading) built into the language any time soon (Java, however, does have this feature). Just my $0.02 rebuttal. -- Marc Bejerano Software Engineer/Consultant ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-03 0:00 What ada 83 compiler is *best* Rick Thorne ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-12-03 0:00 ` marc j bejerano @ 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) Roga Danar 1998-12-07 0:00 ` What ada 83 compiler is *best* Jeff Carter 5 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Matthew Heaney @ 1998-12-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > Look, too, at the Usenet news groups. Compare the traffic on > comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*. The Ada newgroup > is orders of magnitude smaller. One reason programmers write to a newsgroup is to answer technical questions about the language. If fewer people post to comp.lang.ada, perhaps the reason is that Ada is simpler to learn! > Walk into Computer Literacy or any other book store carrying geek > literature. What's the ratio of C++/Java books to Ada? It's easily > orders of magnitude in difference. One reason programmers read geek literature is to answer technical questions about the language. If there are fewer geek books about Ada, perhaps the reason is that Ada is simpler to learn! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-03 0:00 What ada 83 compiler is *best* Rick Thorne ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney @ 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` What ada 83 compiler is *best* Jeff Carter 5 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Roga Danar @ 1998-12-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > Roga Danar wrote: > > > If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them. > > *contemptuous chuckle* > > Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend? Check out the want ads. MY > "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are > literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++. Also, were there EVER many Ada jobs in the newspaper? This does not tell me if there is somewhat more demand, somewhat less or about the same compared to say, 10 years ago. When was the use of Ada at it's Apex? ;-> (Sorry, could not help myself) Okay. I was just looking for some *statistics*. What facts you have are anecdotal and/or nothing new to anyone. Also, I really didn't mean to get your "panties in a bunch" over this. If I may quote the movie Real Genius "There are many decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing." I still put the question to the group: Are there statistics which show the number of new and/or legacy Ada developement/research projects in the US and world-wide? > What statistical sampling do I need other than this? To support the claim that Ada is "rotting" (i.e.. new project declining) you do need more. If you don't know the answer to this question then might I suggest a course in statistics. > Yup, Ada IS a great language. I > agree. The Edsel was a great car, too. FYI, the Edsel was a death-trap. It was very dangerous to drive. I have driven one myself. > > Look, too, at the Usenet news groups. Compare the traffic on > comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*. The Ada newgroup > is orders of magnitude smaller. Look at the journals. When's the last > time Ada was of the cover of IEEE Software? Walk into Computer Literacy > or any other book store carrying geek literature. What's the ratio of > C++/Java books to Ada? It's easily orders of magnitude in difference. > > > Since Ada is a great language and as many advantages and few drawbacks > > compared > > with the more popular languages like C/C++, Java, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol > > etc... It > > is only a matter of time and marketing that Ada is placed, rightfully, as the > > language for the next millennium, IMHO. Hyperbole on my part, granted. > Take a look at the language technologies that have > absolutely left Ada in the dust: Java, C++, Perl, Python, etc. > Why? Simple: TIME AND MARKETING. Perhaps because the syntax for these are very similar? Certainly time had nothing to do with Java's popularity. Can you support this claim? > I haven't been out of work a DAY because of it, nor will > I be out of work for the forseeable future. Ditto. I have more work then I can handle. > I work in Silicon Valley as a software consultant and I promise you, sir, > Ada isn't on the horizon of anyone - ANYONE - I regard as a client, ... Really? I turned down a high paying (thank you very much) Ada contract at Lockheed-Martin in Sunnyvale, CA, hmmmm, perhaps you know of them. ;=> FYI, I worked in the Silicon Valley on 3 different contracts which save one was all new Ada development. -- Michael Smith President, AlphaSoft, Inc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) Roga Danar @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366822F5.D80741EE@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>, job_unspam@no.love.for.spam.alphasoft-inc.com wrote: > If I may quote the movie Real Genius "There are many decaffeinated > brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing." ;-) Thanx for this! I actually have a friend or two who said the same thing when them saw my responses here. If I may offer a quote of my own: "The greatest thing my children taught me was to laugh at myself." I'm laughing. That's good, isn't it? > I still put the question to the group: > Are there statistics which show the number of new and/or legacy > Ada developement/research projects in the US and world-wide? My question too, sir. Like the rest of you, I have a mortgage to pay and children to feed. I also want to retire in the next 10-15 years (I'm 40). I really want to be where the action is, and I'm simply unconvinced that Ada's doing anything but going away. Can ANYONE offer me anything to the contrary? I'm sincerely interested in hearing otherwise. I'm an experienced Ada man who has moved on to the lush, green (if ugly) C++ Pastures and I'm grazing blissfully in the Javalands as well. I don't see the demand for these languages doing anything but increasing, and I see nothing but the opposite for Ada. Can ANYONE offer me evidence to the contrary? Thank you for your respectful answers to my OWN caffinated responses. Sincerely, -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-07 0:00 ` David Botton ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > > My question too, sir. > > Like the rest of you, I have a mortgage to pay and children to feed. I > also want to retire in the next 10-15 years (I'm 40). I really want to be > where the action is, and I'm simply unconvinced that Ada's doing anything > but going away. Can ANYONE offer me anything to the contrary? I'm > sincerely interested in hearing otherwise. I'm an experienced Ada man who > has moved on to the lush, green (if ugly) C++ Pastures and I'm grazing > blissfully in the Javalands as well. I don't see the demand for these > languages doing anything but increasing, and I see nothing but the > opposite for Ada. Can ANYONE offer me evidence to the contrary? > To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. We can stand around complaining that big companies with project managers who know very little about languages make choices for lower quality languages instead of Ada. *OR* We can just go off and start building things in Ada and making them available until it starts to generate its critical mass needed for a long and prosperous life. Compiler vendors have done a good job of making Ada available to the backyard software mechanic either free or for nominal costs. Anyone who wants to program in Ada can do so and I think these guys deserve a round of applause for that effort. (I'd still like to see compilers targeted to even more embedded processors - but that's my particular niche.) There are certainly a number of people who have produced and made available useful tools, utilities, reusable components and other applications in Ada which are available for the cost of a download. If more of us produced software and put it out there, we'd be adding to that critical mass. Ask yourself what kinds of things you'd like to have available when programming in Ada and start building it & making it available. And when we *do* get to make the language selection for a project, do we pick Ada or do we knuckle in to the C++/Java/Whatever pressure around us? So where you have a choice to do so, why not take your favorite set of reusable components or hacker utilities or whatever things are programmed in Ada and stick them on a web page somewhere? In particular, make it known/available to universities because if the next generation of programmers comes out knowing/appreciating Ada, they'll be generating the demand. -- Marin D. Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 Ph: 561.796.8997 Fx: 561.796.4669 "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- G.B. Shaw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` David Botton 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: David Botton @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I agree. I am already working hard on: 1. A clean and easy to use cross platform (Win32, X, Java/JDK) GUI packages 2. COM access as easy as VB for Ada. On The Ada Source Code Treasury, I have a section called called projects at: http://www.botton.com/ada/projects I am more then willing to donate and help to put up any projects or proposals for the creation of reusable open software components. (or for anything Ada for that matter) Ada has real advantages. Lets make Ada real usable, real easy, and real open. Ada can rise to sit as the leading language in many domains now held by Java and C++, but not with out the tools and components to make it easy for all levels, programmers and engineers, to develop software. David Botton Marin David Condic wrote in message <366C2564.1C17E3EE@pwfl.com>... >To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. We can >stand around complaining that big companies with project managers who >know very little about languages make choices for lower quality >languages instead of Ada. *OR* We can just go off and start building >things in Ada and making them available until it starts to generate its >critical mass needed for a long and prosperous life. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-07 0:00 ` David Botton @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes: > To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. ... You're replying to someone who's goal in life is to retire at age 50..55. ;-) - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Marin David Condic [not found] ` <366D6BF8.B1F4C1C0@hercii.mar.lmco.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert A Duff wrote: > > Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes: > > > To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. ... > > You're replying to someone who's goal in life is to retire at age > 50..55. > > ;-) > Retire to do what? Sit back and rot along with all that software? ;-) I'd like to retire next year. Or even this afternoon - if I could work that out with the Lottery Commission. But if I did, I'd do so to persue other interests besides developing engine controls in Ada. Like maybe writing the Great American Operating System in Ada. Or maybe tilt at some windmills and make Ada the new language of choice for programming Financial Analysis applications. I guess I'm one of the crowd who has grown tired of those who simply follow the crowd and cave in to C++/Java/Whatever because that's the way the wind is blowing. I'd rather take the useful technology that's available and build more out of it than waste my time calling other people names because they won't give in to whatever trend I think they ought to follow. -- Marin D. Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 Ph: 561.796.8997 Fx: 561.796.4669 "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- G.B. Shaw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <366D6BF8.B1F4C1C0@hercii.mar.lmco.com>]
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) [not found] ` <366D6BF8.B1F4C1C0@hercii.mar.lmco.com> @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366D6BF8.B1F4C1C0@hercii.mar.lmco.com>, Jerry Petrey <gpetrey@hercii.mar.lmco.com> wrote: > Well said. To me, picking the ideal job is more than just money or > following the trend. > I like woking in real-time embedded applications and using a well > designed, safe language. [-] Another good group of points. Obviously, someone in my (our) career field needs to consider more than just a programming language. Espcialyy for those of us with family and personal interests (music, in my case), we need to live were the world in compatible with our lives. However, some of that comes with our profession as well. Here in Silly Valley, it's a cookie jar for C++/Java folks (it ain't so bad for Ada people either, truth be told). I doubt I'd have nearly as much success in Minot North Dakota. As others have (correctly) pointed out to me, there IS a robust niche market and there's one here under my nose in San Jose. Thanx, -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-07 0:00 ` David Botton 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366C2564.1C17E3EE@pwfl.com>, diespammer@pwfl.com wrote: > To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. We can > stand around complaining that big companies with project managers who > know very little about languages make choices for lower quality > languages instead of Ada. *OR* We can just go off and start building > things in Ada and making them available until it starts to generate its > critical mass needed for a long and prosperous life. > [snip the remainder of this excellent response] Thank you for this most rational reply. It's clear, well-composed, and truthful. It does, unfortunately, also tell me the bad news: Ada's hardly a settled tool in our business. Your reply, Marin, is typical of the more thoughtful ones: it's more "let's make Ada the technology of choice in spite of its lean market appeal." A noble gesture, I think, but unlikely. I thank you all for your responses and apologize for some of my tone. I may have come off as an arrogant brat, but I do like and respect you all. I've been trying to get answers to my very important career choice questions, and since the I Ching was unclear I decided to try the direct approach. I've found this in life: if you want a response, ask a question. If you want and answer, piss someone off. It's contrary to me nature, but it DOES work. Thanx again. -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > > Thank you for this most rational reply. It's clear, well-composed, and > truthful. It does, unfortunately, also tell me the bad news: Ada's hardly > a settled tool in our business. Your reply, Marin, is typical of the more > thoughtful ones: it's more "let's make Ada the technology of choice in > spite of its lean market appeal." A noble gesture, I think, but unlikely. > I appreciate the compliment. Let me say this about the market appeal: Ada has become entrenched rather nicely in certain parts of the market and is not going to go away any time soon. We've built a lot of infrastructure around Ada here at Pratt in the embedded software arena and we're not going to give that up. There are lots of others who build hard realtime & safety critical applications who use Ada - not because of some "mandate" but because it is the best available tool for the job. So while Ada may not be the language in which people are currently building Internet applications, that doesn't mean it is going to disappear. As for career choices, keep in mind that a good software engineer is not good only in one language. I've programmed embedded systems in a whole variety of languages and while I prefer Ada, there are times when Ada is simply not available for the job at hand, so we go with C or assembler or whatever is needed to get the job done. So if you go off and get a job programming in Java that doesn't mean you can't persue an interest in Ada and potentially find ways of utilizing it either on the job or as a sideline interest. I picked my job because I enjoy being involved in embedded realtime systems and military hardware. The fact that this is done largely in Ada is nice too, but if we got word tomorrow that we were now going to program controls in Cobol, that wouldn't mean it was time to quit. MDC -- Marin D. Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 Ph: 561.796.8997 Fx: 561.796.4669 "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- G.B. Shaw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Marin David Condic @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366D56C8.B0F0D6F0@pwfl.com>, diespammer@pwfl.com wrote: > I appreciate the compliment. Let me say this about the market appeal: > Ada has become entrenched rather nicely in certain parts of the market > and is not going to go away any time soon. [-] Excellent point, Marin, and a very encouraging one at that. What you're identifying here is the fact that Ada has a very stable niche market. The same can be said of other excellent software technologies: Smalltalk, LISP, Yourden/DeMarco structured design/analysis, etc. This IS encouraging considering how viable some of these niches can be and often are. There is considerable momentum in these areas; I agree and willingly conceed this point. I'm still interested in knowing about Ada in more commercial non-aerospace markets. Anyone got news?!? > So while Ada may not be the language in which people are currently > building Internet applications, that doesn't mean it is going to > disappear. Very well put. OK, OK - Ada's back in the tool box. Granted, it'll be a less used tool for now, and I guarantee I'll need to sharpen it 'cuz all my Java and C++ tools are banging it around, but it's back. > As for career choices, keep in mind that a good software engineer is not > good only in one language. ... or only one element of the lifecycle. As much as I love programming, my specialty is really UML/OMT OOD/OOA, and those are wonderful tool very much in demand in the software engineering world AND much more at the heart of the software engineering productivity crisis. I agree again with you, Marin - there's more to our profession than a single language or any OTHER topic under the software engineering umbrella. Thanx for the good ideas - hope I can return the favor another time. Rick -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 1998-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes: > Very well put. OK, OK - Ada's back in the tool box. Granted, it'll be a > less used tool for now, and I guarantee I'll need to sharpen it 'cuz all > my Java and C++ tools are banging it around, but it's back. In some ways Ada is sharper than ever. It has been described as a language ahead of its time in the sense that personally owning a computer capable of running a full Ada compiler back in 1983 was quite a feat. Nowadays you can buy one for about the price of a good CRT monitor. In my last job the make process consisted of "well I write the names of all my classes with special macros into this template, then I run this Perl tool over the template which does some stuff and then runs imake which produces the makefile, and then ALL I have to do is type make and it builds it". In the previous job to that I used to tell GNAT where all my source code was (depending on the particular project) and then do gnatmake name_of_main_unit, end of story, so for me the transition to C++ was one of being deprived of sharp useful tools and being given blunt dangerous ones. Admittedly there are better ways in Java and C++ that that, but none I've heard are better than gnatmake was/is for my purposes. Cheers, Chris -- Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com> http://www.mihalis.net "At least my mother isn't on the cover of Crack Whore magazine" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-03 0:00 What ada 83 compiler is *best* Rick Thorne ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) Roga Danar @ 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Jeff Carter 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 5 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Jeff Carter @ 1998-12-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > > Roga Danar wrote: > > ... > > > If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them. > > *contemptuous chuckle* > > Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend? Check out the want ads. MY > "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are > literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++. What statistical > sampling do I need other than this? Yup, Ada IS a great language. I > agree. The Edsel was a great car, too. How many people do you seeing > driving them, let alone BUYING them? > I hate to tell you this, but the next time you fly in a modern airliner, the fly-by-wire software controlling it was written in Ada. Most of the air-traffic-control software in the world, including growing parts in the USA, is written in Ada. Your life depends on a rotting language. -- Jeff Carter E-mail: carter commercial-at innocon [period | full stop] com "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries." Monty Python & the Holy Grail ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` What ada 83 compiler is *best* Jeff Carter @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366C0197.49B15B12@spam.innocon.com> Jeff Carter <spam.carter.not@spam.innocon.com> writes: > Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend? Check out the want ads. MY > "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are > literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++. What statistical > sampling do I need other than this? Let's see, I have worked with software engineers who didn't know Ada, and they were productive in Ada before they knew enough about the application to make serious changes to existing code. (Literally, I could take an Ada package spec and ask them to implement it, and any discussion would be about data-types, real-time constraints, etc.) On the other hand, it takes six to nine months to bring someone up to speed in C++, if you are lucky. So if I need an Ada software engineer, I'll talk about the application domain in the ad. If I need a C++ programmer, C++ will be a requirement. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-07 0:00 ` What ada 83 compiler is *best* Jeff Carter 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Steve O'Neill 1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <366C0197.49B15B12@spam.innocon.com>, Jeff Carter <spam.carter.not@spam.innocon.com> wrote: > I hate to tell you this, but the next time you fly in a modern airliner, > the fly-by-wire software controlling it was written in Ada. Most of the > air-traffic-control software in the world, including growing parts in > the USA, is written in Ada. Your life depends on a rotting language. Is your point that because the air traffic control market is Ada turf that Ada is alive and well? I dunno if I buy that argument at all. Perhaps you can help me: is there a point to your reply? If you're saying that Ada isn't a rotting language because 0.3% of software development environments are still using it, I hardly think your argument is valid. The space shuttle software is written in Jovial. It's man-rated software too. Could I conclude then that Jovial's on the rise?!? -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Steve O'Neill 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Steve O'Neill @ 1998-12-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rick Thorne wrote: > The space shuttle software is written in Jovial. Ooops!! Wrong again, care to try for double jeopardy where the stakes get really high? Once again in this thread you demonstrate that you are not afraid to speak of which you do not know. Shuttle software is written in the HAL/S language. An technically excellent but rather obscure language much akin to Ada. To my knoweldge the HAL language is used in only two places - JPL and NASA. Now *that's* a niche market! > Could I conclude then that Jovial's on the rise?!? You never know... If we can get everyone to believe that it's the 'place to be' then I'm sure that folks will be running to it in droves. ;) Thanks for adding a little excitement to the new group. Steve O'Neill Software Mercenary p.s. Harried father of two? You haven't met harried unless those two are teenage girls! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* What ada 83 compiler is *best*. @ 1998-11-18 0:00 Nobody 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Nobody @ 1998-11-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little programming before I start to learn some of the language. If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a license (which I will if necessary) etc. Cheers. Matt Tyler ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 Nobody @ 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr ` (2 more replies) 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 1998-11-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Nobody" <nobody@logica.com> writes: > I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little > programming before I start to learn some of the language. > If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a > license (which I will if necessary) etc. You can get a reasonable idea with GNAT using the -ada83 flag. It doesn't magically become an ada83 compiler but it knows all ther Ada95 consructs to disallow and the subtle differences wont be worth worrying about yet. -- Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com> Home Web Server - http://mihalis.dyn.ml.org/index.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1998-11-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87d86lgn4i.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com>, Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > "Nobody" <nobody@logica.com> writes: > > > I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little > > programming before I start to learn some of the language. > > If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a > > license (which I will if necessary) etc. > > You can get a reasonable idea with GNAT using the -ada83 flag. It > doesn't magically become an ada83 compiler but it knows all ther Ada95 > consructs to disallow and the subtle differences wont be worth > worrying about yet. The option is -gnat83, as clearly noted in the GNAT documentation. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr @ 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1998-11-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87d86lgn4i.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com>, Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > "Nobody" <nobody@logica.com> writes: > > > I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little > > programming before I start to learn some of the language. > > If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a > > license (which I will if necessary) etc. > > You can get a reasonable idea with GNAT using the -ada83 flag. It > doesn't magically become an ada83 compiler but it knows all ther Ada95 > consructs to disallow and the subtle differences wont be worth > worrying about yet. The option is -gnat83 as clearly documented in the GNAT users guide! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr @ 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1998-11-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87d86lgn4i.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com>, Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > "Nobody" <nobody@logica.com> writes: > > > I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little > > programming before I start to learn some of the language. > > If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a > > license (which I will if necessary) etc. > > You can get a reasonable idea with GNAT using the -ada83 flag. It > doesn't magically become an ada83 compiler but it knows all ther Ada95 > consructs to disallow and the subtle differences wont be worth > worrying about yet. It is a *really* good idea for people to try out things they suggest before writing the suggestion :-) This particular suggestion won't get far, there is no such flag as -ada83 for GNAT! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 Nobody 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-11-19 0:00 ` whiter5195 [not found] ` <36534040.F30A5E5B@hercii.mar.lmco.com> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-11-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <72ue3m$omt@romeo.logica.co.uk>, "Nobody" <nobody@logica.com> writes: > If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a > license (which I will if necessary) etc. I would vote DEC Ada on VAX as "best", but if you hate VMS it is quite obviously not best, so there are many external criteria besides the price angle to which you alluded. I am surprised you can be willing to pay for a license (as you would have to for DEC Ada) without specifying how much. If you buy a used machine, it might cost less than 1% of the DEC Ada license under certain pathelogical conditions. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-11-18 0:00 ` dennison ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Rick Thorne @ 1998-11-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1998Nov18.103329.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > I would vote DEC Ada on VAX as "best", This is a perfect option! Since Ada and VAX are both rotting corpses awaiting a dignified burial, you can spend valuable career time learning BOTH and become COMPLETELY unmarketable!!! -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Rick Thorne @ 1998-11-18 0:00 ` dennison 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Gautier de Montmollin 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Roga Danar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: dennison @ 1998-11-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <to.reply-1811980823590001@129.197.97.40>, to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) wrote: > In article <1998Nov18.103329.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > > > I would vote DEC Ada on VAX as "best", > > This is a perfect option! Since Ada and VAX are both rotting corpses > awaiting a dignified burial, you can spend valuable career time learning > BOTH and become COMPLETELY unmarketable!!! That depends on your definition of marketable. Its common for consultants to parley knowledge of orphaned OS'es and tools into very lucrative careers. -- T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-11-18 0:00 ` dennison @ 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Gautier de Montmollin 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Roga Danar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Gautier de Montmollin @ 1998-11-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > This is a perfect option! Since Ada and VAX are both rotting corpses > awaiting a dignified burial, you can spend valuable career time learning > BOTH and become COMPLETELY unmarketable!!! Rotting (or rotten) doesn't mean unmarketable - e.g. C++, Windows. -- Gautier BTW: I'm sure you didn't try DEC Ada... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-11-18 0:00 ` dennison 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Gautier de Montmollin @ 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Roga Danar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Roga Danar @ 1998-12-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rick, rick.thorne Rick Thorne wrote: > In article <1998Nov18.103329.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > > > I would vote DEC Ada on VAX as "best", > > This is a perfect option! Since Ada and VAX are both rotting corpses > awaiting a dignified burial ... What? If I am not mistaken DEC has distance itself from VAX. Ada is continues to be supported by many people throughout the world. If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them. Since Ada is a great language and as many advantages and few drawbacks compared with the more popular languages like C/C++, Java, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol etc... It is only a matter of time and marketing that Ada is placed, rightfully, as the language for the next millennium, IMHO. -- Michael Smith Persident, AlphaSoft, Inc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-18 0:00 Nobody 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-11-19 0:00 ` whiter5195 1998-11-23 0:00 ` Charlie McCutcheon [not found] ` <36534040.F30A5E5B@hercii.mar.lmco.com> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread From: whiter5195 @ 1998-11-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <72ue3m$omt@romeo.logica.co.uk>, "Nobody" <nobody@logica.com> wrote: > I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little > programming before I start to learn some of the language. > If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a > license (which I will if necessary) etc. Without a doubt, IMHO, it is DEC Ada! Of course first you need a VAX to run it on ;-/ What platform are you interested in? If you are using a PC or a MAC just get GNAT. You can always set the -gnat83 switch if you really need to. _____________________________________________________________________ Robert S. White -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-19 0:00 ` whiter5195 @ 1998-11-23 0:00 ` Charlie McCutcheon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Charlie McCutcheon @ 1998-11-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Note also that DEC Ada is also available on Alphas (Digital UNIX and OpenVMS), not just VAX. Its also still supported (in spite of any postings suggesting otherwise!). Charlie whiter5195@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Without a doubt, IMHO, it is DEC Ada! Of course first you need a > VAX to run it on ;-/ What platform are you interested in? If you are > using a PC or a MAC just get GNAT. You can always set the -gnat83 > switch if you really need to. > _____________________________________________________________________ > Robert S. White > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <36534040.F30A5E5B@hercii.mar.lmco.com>]
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. [not found] ` <36534040.F30A5E5B@hercii.mar.lmco.com> @ 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Steve Kerr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Ed Falis 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-11-22 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Steve Kerr @ 1998-11-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jerry Petrey wrote in message <36534040.F30A5E5B@hercii.mar.lmco.com>... Nobody wrote: I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little programming before I start to learn some of the language. If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a license (which I will if necessary) etc. Cheers. Matt Tyler I would vote for Rational VADS if they have what you are looking for in terms of host and target. For a free system, you can't beat GNAT but it is an Ada 95 compiler although it has a switch for Ada 83 to disable the new features. (And I thought we were the only ones stuck in the Ada 83 world :-) Jerry -- ===================================================================== = Jerry Petrey - Consultant Software Engineer - Member Team Ada = = Lockheed Martin Member Team Forth = ===================================================================== I hate to have to disagree with you there Jerry, but I am currently using Rational VADs on a DEC Alpha running OSF/1 cross compiling to Alpha AXP. To be blunt this is the worst compiler/environment I have ever used. There are 1703 deficiency reports listed in the supplied manual. Most of the critical ones appear to be regarding the debugger which is to a large extent unusable, to quote the manual: Debugger cannot display array slices Debugger error in calculating address of variables A debugger that can't display variables doesn't seem very useful to me. Anyway, back to the original question: IMHO, DEC Ada on VMS is rather splendid, with good library handling tools. Obviously you'll need a VAX, even an old one is not cheap compared to a PC, so perhaps you might be better to go for GNAT, but I have never tried that one. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Steve Kerr @ 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Ed Falis 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 1998-11-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Guess the question is "what's the host/target combination?" It's fair to say there are different answers as to "best" depending on it. - Ed Falis Aonix ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Steve Kerr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Ed Falis @ 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 1998-11-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Steve Kerr" <steve@pumasoftware.freeserve.co.uk> writes: > Anyway, back to the original question: IMHO, DEC Ada on VMS is rather > splendid, with good library handling tools. Obviously you'll need a VAX, > even an old one is not cheap compared to a PC, so perhaps you might be > better to go for GNAT, but I have never tried that one. There was a famous thread on this group several years ago entitled "DEC Ada - why is it so good" which seemed to conclude that it was indeed one of the best Ada83 environments ever made. I was insanely jealous at the time as we had VAXes but a.n.other Ada compiler which wasn't so good. GNAT is the beneficiary of much of the DEC Ada experience as it passes the entire DEC Ada test suite and also supports all the DEC Ada pragmas and so on on the DEC platforms. Make sure you read the GNAT documentation before coming to any conclusions ;) Chris -- Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com> Home Web Server - http://mihalis.dyn.ml.org/index.html email me for numeric URL if ml.org is down ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*. [not found] ` <36534040.F30A5E5B@hercii.mar.lmco.com> 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Steve Kerr @ 1998-11-22 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread From: Keith Thompson @ 1998-11-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Nobody wrote: > I have to work on a project soon using ada 83.I am planning to do a little > programming before I start to learn some of the language. > If I wanted to get a compiler what is the best and do I have to pay for a > license (which I will if necessary) etc. > > Cheers. > > Matt Tyler Are you sure you need an Ada 83 compiler? Ada 95 is very nearly upward compatible with Ada 83, and there are free Ada 95 compilers available. If you really need to learn just the Ada 83 subset, you can get an Ada 95 compiler and an Ada 83 textbook, and ignore the new features. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> <*> Qualcomm, San Diego, California, USA <http://www.qualcomm.com> I must be a techno-geek. My mouse is bigger than my phone. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-12-14 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 73+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1998-12-03 0:00 What ada 83 compiler is *best* Rick Thorne 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Gautier 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marc A. Criley 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` David Gillon 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-09 0:00 ` John McCabe 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Gautier.DeMontmollin 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-09 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-12-09 0:00 ` P.S. Norby 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-10 0:00 ` Tucker Taft 1998-12-11 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-12-14 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-12-03 0:00 ` marc j bejerano 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1998-12-04 0:00 ` Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*) Roga Danar 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-07 0:00 ` David Botton 1998-12-07 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Marin David Condic [not found] ` <366D6BF8.B1F4C1C0@hercii.mar.lmco.com> 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Marin David Condic 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-09 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-12-07 0:00 ` What ada 83 compiler is *best* Jeff Carter 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-12-08 0:00 ` Steve O'Neill -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 1998-11-18 0:00 Nobody 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` dewarr 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Rick Thorne 1998-11-18 0:00 ` dennison 1998-11-18 0:00 ` Gautier de Montmollin 1998-12-03 0:00 ` Roga Danar 1998-11-19 0:00 ` whiter5195 1998-11-23 0:00 ` Charlie McCutcheon [not found] ` <36534040.F30A5E5B@hercii.mar.lmco.com> 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Steve Kerr 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Ed Falis 1998-11-21 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1998-11-22 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox