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,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b0d569080889afd6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Roy Grimm Subject: Re: A question for my personal knowledge. Date: 1999/05/10 Message-ID: <37372A84.641F2133@bigfoot.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 476291065 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1VEZ2.1515$I51.88140@carnaval.risq.qc.ca> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Me, Myself and I (Not representing my company) Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Siamak Kaveh wrote: > > Hello Everybody, > > Accepting that Ada is one of the best available programming languages, the > following question comes to my mind: Why BIG PLAYERS of computer industry > (IBM, HP, COMPAQ(Digital), CRAY, Microsoft, SUN...) don't develop their > native ADA compiler? (or they disconnected their development). Many of the "big players" would not necessarily agree with your assertion that Ada is one of the best available programming languages. Hence, they see no need to make a compiler. Beyond that, they have a fair amount of legacy support for the languages they do use. It costs money to develop a new compiler for their systems for a language that isn't as widely used as, say, C/C++, COBOL, FORTRAN, etc. In addition, there is a cultural issue. Ada was generated as a result of the U.S. DoD mandating one language for most of their systems. Many people still see Ada as a "government language", regardless of the true nature of it. People's opinion has a lot more weight than the facts in this case. > Do their engineers and managers understand that using ADA can improve > quality of their software? First off, many people will contend your assertion that using Ada, by itself, can improve the quality of their software. Facts aside, many people believe that the language choice does not matter. Until there are significant quantitative analyses for managers to be shown, the discussion will continue back and forth. Second, there are many legacy systems in this world and converting them to a new language is prohibitively expensive. That's why you still see jobs for COBOL programmers. Third, training a programming team a new language is expensive. Not only do you have to provide the training, you have to pay the programmers for the "dead time". Many companies are not willing to take the short term expense. Fourth, there is a Catch-22 situation. There aren't too many Ada programmers out there which make many managers use other languages in order to find people to work for them. But, the lack of projects means there's no incentive for people to learn Ada. This industry has a lot more inertia than one might realize. > Siamak, > > Please note this question is only for my personal knowledge and I have no > intention to start any never-ending dispute. If you think your response can > start a religious war please neglect this question. I'm not interested in holy wars. I just call 'em like I see 'em. Nevertheless, I think that by merely asking the question, you will have started a holy war in one form or another... -- Windows98 (noun)- 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.