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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7b3c720a19fbb26f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Siow Wey Hua Subject: What Mac developers think of Ada ! Date: 1999/10/30 Message-ID: <381A0466.2137859E@mbox5.singnet.com.sg> X-Deja-AN: 542188620 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ps750@mbox5.singnet.com.sg Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Hello all, Below are responses of some Mac developers from Apple's OpenSource (Darwin Public Source mailing list) to my question of rewriting Darwin (a BSD 4.4 unix) in Ada 95 !. Personal comments at the bottom of each numbered mail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 04:29:48 -0400 From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" Subject: Re: Coding Darwin in Ada 95 > If Darwin is to be unique among the unixes, why not rewrite or recompile > the bulk of the Darwin OS (written in C++) in Ada 95 (high level OO > procedural-based language, ISO 8652:1995) instead of Objective C or C++ > ? Because a) it's a lot of work, b) means everything would have to be reoptimized from scratch, c) C and Unix are like Strawberries and Champagne, they belong together. Further, strongly typed and dynamic OOP are for the most part at odds with each other. Ada may be able to replace C++, but it's hardly a fit replacement for the task ObjC is supposed to do. Your suggestion would be much more fit when we were talking about OpenVMS, than when talking about a Unix OS with an dynamic OOP environment. > No other language I know so far beats Ada 95 in terms of reliability > (strongly typed), portability, reusability. In terms of portability Ada is beaten by C, Java, Cobol..., in terms of reusability by SmallTalk, ObjC, etc. and in terms of reliability by a slew of smaller languages. Ada is huge, and thus the likelyhood of having bugs in the compiler etc. are much higher than for a small, lean and mean language. > Besides since all unixes are > renowned for their breadth of software development capabilities, writing > unix or macosx programs in Ada 95 should not be too difficult, given > that GNAT exists (GNU Ada Translator by Ada Core Technologies) and other > good ones exist for unix and wintel platforms. C++ to Ada 95 conversion > tools exists as well. Depends. For application programming ADA may or may not be appropriate, depending on how much dynamism is required. Interfacing ADA to Cocoa wouldn't be exactly trivial... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The arguments are rather subjective (and not very good in specifics), lacking objectivity. Because I am a newcomer to Ada 95 and advanced programming concepts, my arguments are rather weak. How does one and who shall define the terms portability, reusability, reliability ? and in what context and scope ? >From Ada 95's perspective ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:34:28 -0700 From: Creed Erickson Subject: Re: Coding Darwin in Ada 95 At 12:46 AM -0700 8/26/99, Siow Wey Hua wrote: >...why not rewrite or recompile the bulk of the Darwin OS (written in C++) > in Ada 95 (high level OO procedural-based language, ISO 8652:1995) instead > of Objective C or C++? Two words: Zero Mindshare. - --- Creed Erickson (mailto:creed@landooz.com) Professional Nitpicker, Instigator, and Software Test Pilot "There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works." -Anon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Too bad, no big deal though. The man's entitled to his own opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:13:37 -0400 From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" Subject: Re: Responses > I definitely recognise that Objective C (odd man out of the C family with > SmallTalk roots and to a certain extent marginalised) is the best way > forward for Darwin of the present, but what will happen after 5 to 10 years > when Objective C becomes obsolete ? > Since Ada is an ISO standard, it will be reviewed and improved in the next > millennium, Ada is an all-rounded language despite its military background, > and is a good candidate for the MacOS 1X to be coded in the next decade or > so. You make the false assumption that ObjC *will* become obsolete. History has shown us that the dynamic languages tend to have much longer life spans than the static ones. Lisp, one of the earliest programming languages is still alive and kicking, and most importantly, considered state of the art. Fortran and Cobol are still alive, due to the huge code base out there, but few people would call them "state of the art". Meanwhile a slew of static languages came and went, while languages like SmallTalk stay. I give ObjC more staying power than the average static language. Ada may be an exception, because of similar reasons as hold true for Cobol and Fortran: a huge installed base will be created. However, if reliability really counts, I'd rather use Eiffel, a comparatively small and elegant language, than punishing myself with Ada. Eiffel can both be translated into C/C++ code or be directly compiled into native code. Tower already did some work integrating Eiffel with NeXTSTEP and I bet that would, given sufficient interest, port rather easily to OSX(S). Ada is unfortunately another one of these "designed by committee" languages. No further comments... particularly since this is getting somewhat off topic here. Anyone can do what they want, but I think the idea that Ada will stir up a lot of enthusiasm around here is an illusion. I think OO bindings to Scheme or CLOS, or a real SmallTalk environment for Cocoa would attract far more attention around here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How does one define "state of the art" ? Let's not forget that computer languages like human languages continues to evolve in order to survive and maintain relevance. And why would I care about Betrand Meyer's Eiffel and Xerox's SmallTalk ? I have little interest in this time-consuming debate of C++ vs Ada. I asked those provocative questions just to satisfy my curiosity. I joined comp.lang.ada some 3 weeks ago and have been lurking since ... Regards, Wey Hua Siow 30th October 1999 Back to lurk mode !