Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Roga Danar <smithm_nospam@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>]

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    As for standards, I don't think your saying that the Ada95 standard is
obsolete.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.
;->