From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f54972b30834b03d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Rush Kester Subject: Re: Future of Ada? Date: 1999/01/19 Message-ID: <36A4A29D.3E6D@jhuapl.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 434431858 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369c6b78.7488219@news.nodak.edu> <77vcta$jn2$1@remarQ.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@houston.jhuapl.edu X-Trace: houston.jhuapl.edu 916759197 700 128.244.61.247 (19 Jan 1999 15:19:57 GMT) Organization: AdaSoft at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jan 1999 15:19:57 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-19T15:19:57+00:00 List-Id: news.oxy.com wrote: > > Jim wrote in message <369c6b78.7488219@news.nodak.edu>... > >I am just wondering what those who frequent this news group think > >about the future of Ada. I've heard a lot of talk that Ada is kind of > >dying out and that not even the military is using it any more. Any > >comments would be greatly appreciated. > > > > -Jim I have developed software professionally in COBOL, Fortran, Assembler, Pascal, and Ada. Ada is by far the most powerful higher level language. It was easier to develop applications in Ada (without resorting to assembler language helper routines). It was also easier to reuse Ada code. While it not easy to develop reusable code in any language, in Ada, the extra time spent specifing the interfaces and parameterizing software for reuse, paid big dividends. My research and experience at the Software Engineering Laboratory at NASA Goddard showed that reuse (both without changes, and requiring modifications) increased with Ada versus Fortran or C/C++. See http://sel.gsfc.nasa.gov/doc-st/docs.htm and in particular "Impact of Ada and Object-Oriented Design in the Flight Dynamics Division at NASA/GSFC," (http://sel.gsfc.nasa.gov/doc-st/docs/95-001.pdf). Prior to Ada'95, Ada was handicapped by a "closed" view of application development. By that I mean, the presumption was that the entire application would be developed in Ada & that Ada bindings would be available to the operating system services. Ada'95 made it much easier to develop mixed language applications and to link to existing API libraries (written in other languages). Another handicap, prior to the Ada'9x effort was the high cost of Ada compilers and tools. Now there are free compilers available (GNAT, and ObjectAda). The recently ISO approved Ada Semantic Interface Specification (ASIS) makes developing powerful and portable tools easy. My only concern is not with the technology or infrastructure, but with overcoming prejudices from Ada's origin's with U.S. Dept. of Defense and attaining critical mass in broader markets. Contray to what Jim has heard, the U.S. Military still uses lots of programming languages, including Ada (even though it's use is no longer "mandated.") -- Rush Kester Software System Engineer at Johns Hopkins Univ./Applied Physics Lab. voice: (240) 228-3030 (M-F 9am to 5pm EST)