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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-30 09:14:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!feeder.via.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.144!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B6588FC.6D40C443@sneakemail.com> From: Russ Paielli <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-20mdk i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to make Ada a dominant language References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <9k3l9r$10i2$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B656345.64AB603A@sneakemail.com> <9k3oa1$2qg8$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B657715.7EC592D9@sneakemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:19:08 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 996509675 63.194.87.148 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:14:35 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:14:35 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10761 Date: 2001-07-30T09:19:08-07:00 List-Id: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > In article <3B657715.7EC592D9@sneakemail.com>, Russ Paielli <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> writes: > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > >> > >> One of the best things about Ada is stability. There have only been two > >> versions of the standard, and vendor extensions are well under control. > > > >> There are many things that can be done to make Ada more popular outside > >> the language definition. Any changes to the language pale by comparison > >> in their effect. Making Ada more popular would not be desireable if it > >> hurt the clarity and correctness advantages Ada has now. > > > > My proposal is deliberately designed to have a minimal effect on > > stability. As I said, a relatively simple preprocessor would be able to > > translate back and forth between Ada95 and the syntax I am proposing. If > > you want to continue to use Ada95 syntax, you could do so with impunity. > > What's the problem? > > There is no problem, as a previous poster indicated, for you to devise > a syntactic equivalent to Ada. Using keywords in French would be one > example. You can translate back and forth, but I don't think others > will be attracted to the RUSS language. Yes, I realize I could develop a translator independent of any official Ada standard, and I may end up doing just that. The problem is that gnatmake and other tools will not work properly unless I can convince the gnatmake developers to cooperate with me. By the way, if you think that what I am proposing is no more useful than translating Ada keywords to French, you are obviously missing the point. I'll give your intelligence the benefit of the doubt and assume you are INTENTIONALLY missing the point. Oh, you don't think that others will be attracted to the "RUSS" language, eh? I've got news for you, dude: not many others are attracted to Ada either, at this point. > > I read recently that only one in ten new DoD WEAPONS programs is even > > choosing Ada now that the DoD mandate has been dropped. Don't even ask > > about DoD accounting and supply-chain management programs! > > Certainly those decisions are not made on the basis of the symbols > used for syntax. Personally I am not particularly concerned with > DoD. Consider railway and subway controls, where Europe seems to > use Ada more certainly than the US. Perhaps some years from now > the US will commission a study regarding greater safety on the > European rail systems. Perhaps not. But in the meantime, there > are more immediate problems like the recent Microsoft IIS buffer > overflow problem. No, language selection is not made DIRECTLY on the basis of the symbols used in the syntax. But languages ARE often selected on the basis of their POPULARITY. Popularity breeds more popularity, in a sort of positive feedback mechanism. But where does the initial popularity come from? How do languages "catch on"? I suggest it has a lot to do with how much programmers like the language, and good programmers like a clean, elegant syntax that is uncluttered with a bunch of extraneous crap. That is why Python is perhaps more popular than Ada even though it has been around only a fraction of the time. > > I am trying to sell Ada for a safety-critical program, and I am getting > > little or no support from my organization. > > Perhaps you are not the successful salesman type. I know that I am > not. I see some things in unrelated areas that are sold for no good > reason at all. Apparently YOU don't think I am a very good salesman :-) > > I am new to Ada, and I believe that gives me a certain perspective that > > Ada veterans lack. I am making a proposal that could save the best > > programming language around, and all I get is a bunch of irrelevant > > criticism. > > Think of it as a sampling of what wider opinion would be like. One > can write voice-of-doom headlines criticizing Ada for switching > directions according to your scenario. One can also write such > headlines about many other scenarios. The best thing most people > can do for Ada is to write one great program in Ada and let the > results stand for themselves. In the software environment I work in, nobody knows or cares about Ada. Oh, they know it exists, but that's about all they know. If headlines came out about Ada switching directions, it would be the best thing that ever happened to Ada. Russ