Re: is ada dead?

[Lao Xiao Hai <laoxhai@ix.netcom.com>]

Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:

> Yes, Java has its problems, threading model is one of them. I made an attempt
> to use Ada (JGNAT strictly speaking) to write selected modules. Unfortunately, the
> cost of support was prohibitive. I am ready to pay for support, but the cost must
> be in sync with the rest of industry.

This is a long-standing issue with Ada.   When the language was mandated by the
DoD, lots of compiler publishers rushed to the trough, eager to feed on government
pork.   Because they thought they had the DoD as a captive customer, they charged
exorbitant prices for their compiler and tool products.   One could make the case that
it was the compiler publishers, particularly some of the most prominent of them, who
were most culpable in the failure of Ada to ride the wave of democratization of
programming that emerged during the 1980's.

A few compiler publishers tried to break that pattern, among them RR Software and
Meridian.   Alsys never did get it.    Rational never got it.    Aonix, the child of
Alsys, finally caught on, but possibly too late.    Currently, the salvation of Ada
seems to lie in the availability of GNAT products and the associated FSF movement.
Still, support is expensive, regardless of where you seek it.   I think the surviving
compiler publishers are doing a better job of recognizing the need for pricing their
products and services more orthogonally to the marketplace, but we still have a
long way to go.

The question that triggered this thread has to do with the viability of Ada.   Recently,
I have encountered academics who believe there is no point in teaching Ada anymore
since it is, if not dead, irrelevant.   One even told me it would be impossible to buy
an Ada compiler in five years.    Wrongheaded as that opinion may be, it is more
widespread than I would like.    One of my students works for a large defense
contractor with products written in Ada.    He tells me his job is to "rip out all of
that Ada code and replace it with C++."   As stupid as that decision might be, it is
a reality we must acknowledge.

We also have to do a better job of countering minsinformation.   Among the idiotic
things I have heard recently.   "Boeing is going to convert the B777 avionics code
to C++."   "The FAA has abandoned Ada.  It no longer plans to do any new development
in Ada."   "The transition to Ada 95 is too expensive.  We plan to convert our code
to C++."    "There are no development tools for Ada.  We are going to use C++ and
Java."    Oh, and this one is still around.  "Ada is too expensive.  The cost/benefit of
Ada is not offset by Ada's being a better language.   We can build software just as
well and for less money than it would cost to use Ada."

While I believe that all those statements are dead wrong,  some people at major defense
contractors making software tool decisions, or who influence those decisions, actually
believe this stuff.  Yes, it is true that some of them are making the decision without
understanding the real issues related to the brittleness of C++, but that does not change
the fact they are making the decision.   The only heartening thing is that, once they
understand just how horrid C++ is, some have revisited that decision and have given
consideration to the benefits of Ada.   Perhaps they must come to a realization that
the grass really isn't greener after all.   Perhaps, once they are really knowledgeable
about the issues of C++ versus Ada they will overcome their own biases and make
the right choice.   Perhaps pigs will grow wings and fly.

Ada is not dead.  We have clients who are committed to it and continue to recognize
its benefits.   ACT, DDC-I, ICC, Aonix, RR Software, OCS, and Rational, continue
to get contracts for new Ada projects from new clients who understand Ada.   Those
of us with a commercial interest in the success of Ada have a responsibility to ensure
that those projects are successful, that they are economically on sound footing, and
that the customer is not left out to dry on important issues such as tools (debuggers, etc.),
support, and training.   If we continue to provide quality, Ada can survive, revive, and
grow into a viable alternative to the junk that has become so prevalent in the popular
software development industry.

Richard Riehle