Ada The Best Language?

Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
significant advantages over other programming language might want to
re-think their positions.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[chris.danx]

"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> re-think their positions.

God gimme strength!!! (oops I forgot! I am a god!!! A god with a stupid ape)!

On this newsgroup you'll usually start something with a question like that.  To
save that from happening have a look at the "is ada dead?" thread, if your
really interested and not a person who get's a kick out of posing the question
and seeing the threads that errupt from it.



Chris Campbell

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com>, codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:
> How come it is not more widely accepted?

For the inverse of the reason Microsoft Windows is so widely accepted.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Ada is the greatest language ever invented for any and all purposes. Nobody
should ever be allowed to use anything else to program any computer for any
application. Ada should be made mandatory under penalty of law for all
software development of any kind. Violators should have their Geek License
rescinded for a period of not less than one nor greater than five years.
Storm Troopers should be dispatched to every house in the land with a
mandate to erase all other compilers from every computer disk anywhere.

(now let's see who we catch with that troll.... :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> re-think their positions.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Jeffrey Carter]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> re-think their positions.

This is an obvious troll from someone who is too stupid to have anything
better to do. No intelligent person will respond to it.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You empty-headed animal-food-trough wiper."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Gerhard Häring]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:12:56 GMT, Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote:
>codesavvy wrote:
>> 
>> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
>> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
>> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
>> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
>> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
>> re-think their positions.
>
>This is an obvious troll from someone who is too stupid to have anything
>better to do. No intelligent person will respond to it.

Didn't you just respond to it? ;-)

Gerhard
-- 
mail:   gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de       registered Linux user #64239
web:    http://highqualdev.com              public key at homepage
public key fingerprint: DEC1 1D02 5743 1159 CD20  A4B6 7B22 6575 86AB 43C0
reduce(lambda x,y: x+y, [chr(ord(x)^42) for x in list('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')])

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[JP]

Just for information. I have been told by "agency" guy that some companies
program Ada in way that means performance is not met, i.e. 4 or more layers
for an essentailly driver app. Meanwhile the same company will program in C
and make it fit the performance constraints, i.e. 1-2 layers. Reason - I
assume it the the God of OOD and OSI.. By the way, these are embedded
systems with tight CPU requirements.
I prefer Ada (having just finished a C project) but find it hard to compete
with the QA and other Standards people who forget that if a prigram cannot
meet performance reqts (however well it meets Quality stnds), then it don't
work (fullstop).

PS. I have written Ada in 2 major embedded and working systems.

chris.danx <chris.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oo_47.59082$B56.11636075@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
> > How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> > that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> > tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> > share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> > significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> > re-think their positions.
>
> God gimme strength!!! (oops I forgot! I am a god!!! A god with a stupid
ape)!
>
> On this newsgroup you'll usually start something with a question like
that.  To
> save that from happening have a look at the "is ada dead?" thread, if your
> really interested and not a person who get's a kick out of posing the
question
> and seeing the threads that errupt from it.
>
>
>
> Chris Campbell
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Paul Storm]

Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> 
> codesavvy wrote:
> >
> > How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> > that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> > tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> > share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> > significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> > re-think their positions.
> 
> This is an obvious troll from someone who is too stupid to have anything
> better to do. No intelligent person will respond to it.
> 
Since you responded, what does that make you?  :-)

Note that I am responding to your posting, not his.  ;-P

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com>, codesavvy wrote:
> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> re-think their positions.

Well, this is a good question that I can't asnwer to.

What are absolute positives and negatives of Ada ?
Only practical ones of course, no "elegance" or "purity" ones,
and no military/embeded-only ones, please.

Some of negatives might be due to different design, and are only
negatives from mainstream languages programmer's point of view.

Comparised to mainstream (C/C++, Java and Perl) prefered.
You should compare to best of these three in compared field.

Which features do you think might be ported to mainstream languages
w/o much changes ?
Which of these negatives are fixable ?

Please append to this list and/or comment about these items:
+ better compile-time bug catching
+ garbage collection
+ no sigsegv
+ no pointer problems
+ nice way of making new types
- evil i/o model
- less freely available libraries
- less freely available real-world example code
- too strong typing
- can't tweak performance too much
- very verbose syntax
- no printf or equivalent

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
better than what C++ offers.  I've read posts in this news group that
extoll Ada for it's many virtues but the truth of the matter is that
they are overrated if they exist at all.  Are there any statistics
that state that Ada leads to more reliable, maintainable, or robust
code than does C++?  What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
solve that C++ can't?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Beau]

so the pissing contest begins...

--
~Beau~
beau@hiwaay.net

"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> re-think their positions.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From taw@users.sourceforge.net

>Please append to this list and/or comment about these items:
[...]
>- less freely available real-world example code

I won't need a complete Linux Kernel written in Ada to get familiar with
the language.

>- too strong typing

What? Sorry, but the typing is a great plus. It's true, you have to think a
little more about it when designing types and sometimes this might be a 
little
bit annoying ;), but is thinking really that *bad*?

If nothing helps, there's still the feature of Unchecked Type Conversions.
At least you were warned then. :)

>- very verbose syntax

That's what I like in Ada. You see the code. You read the code. You see what 
it does. You understand it.

I find "A := A mod 100;" much more readable than "A%=100;"

It says what it does, even if you don't know almost nothing about the
language. Is that a negative? You can read and _understand_ the code even if
you don't read the comments if some there are at all[*]. The problem seems
to be that most programmers are lazy when writing code. OTOH, they then wish
their colleagues to hell when they have to maintain the code until they 
realize
that it was their own code. :)

[*] I understand that most Ada programmers probably have a better style in
code documentation anyway. So that's not really a point. :)

>- no printf or equivalent

Oohooh. You don't really need a debugger. ;-)

BTW, printf() almost never does what it looks like.

  printf("The value is %l", some_value);

Quite correct C, IIRC. Are you sure, if it gives you the correct result?


Vinzent.

-- 
Real programmers don't comment their code.
It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)

>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>solve that C++ can't?

What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?


Vinzent.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Gerhard H�ring wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:43:59 -0400, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>>Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)
>>>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>>>solve that C++ can't?
>>
>>What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
>
>OOP. Generic programming. Programming in the large. ...

That's all possible with asm, too:
  - OOP is a design concept which can be easily implemented in asm by
    applying a well thought structure to data entities.
  - Generic programming is directly supported by macros. OTOH commiting
    data strutures to a consistent level of indirection, generic algorithms
    instantiated only once are no problem.
  - Editors supporting Folding and assembler supporting multiple source files
    allow very large programms.

All done on my C64.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Gerhard Häring]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:43:59 -0400, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)
>
>>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>>solve that C++ can't?
>
>What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?

OOP. Generic programming. Programming in the large. ...

One might argue that Ada solves them better, though.

Gerhard
-- 
mail:   gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de       registered Linux user #64239
web:    http://highqualdev.com              public key at homepage
public key fingerprint: DEC1 1D02 5743 1159 CD20  A4B6 7B22 6575 86AB 43C0
reduce(lambda x,y: x+y, [chr(ord(x)^42) for x in list('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')])

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Gary Lisyansky]

"Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl> wrote in message
news:9j2qqb$qlu$1@news.tpi.pl...

> - less freely available real-world example code
You lack some more Notepad clones?

> - too strong typing
Less chance to invite a user to "type mismatch"?

> - very verbose syntax
Ohhh. Sequences of "*&<<>>{}" are used to replace bad words and in C/C++. In
both cases they make the thing less understandable.

> - no printf or equivalent
It's real bad. It was such a nice way to generate tasty runtime errors!!!

Gary

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.

"Beau" <beau@hiwaay.net> wrote in message news:<tl9tq98nt23c4c@corp.supernews.com>...
> so the pissing contest begins...
> 
> --
> ~Beau~
> beau@hiwaay.net
> 
> "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
> > How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> > that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> > tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> > share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> > significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> > re-think their positions.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <9j2qqb$qlu$1@news.tpi.pl>, taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) writes:
> In article <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com>, codesavvy wrote:
>> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
>> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
>> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
>> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
>> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
>> re-think their positions.
> 
> Well, this is a good question that I can't asnwer to.
> 
> What are absolute positives and negatives of Ada ?
> Only practical ones of course, no "elegance" or "purity" ones,
> and no military/embeded-only ones, please.

Please read http://www.adapower.com/ since the rest of us have been
through this before.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5be89e2f.0107171810.1cee29c0@posting.google.com>, codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:
> I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer

But we care, because it cruds up the newsgroup with repetition.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask it, but first
you should read http://www.adapower.com/

> is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> better than what C++ offers.  I've read posts in this news group that
> extoll Ada for it's many virtues but the truth of the matter is that
> they are overrated if they exist at all.  Are there any statistics
> that state that Ada leads to more reliable, maintainable, or robust
> code than does C++?  What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
> solve that C++ can't?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
> is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
> advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
> in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
> superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
> believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
> substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.
>
From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this
sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything.

In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from
doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing, (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then
certainly Ada shines over all others. If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand its value.

Some people like to chase bugs with a debugger; I even know some people who always run their programs the first time under the
debugger, because they are sure that they will need it anyway. My personal pleasure is to take a good time understanding and
defining what I really want to do, then write it, being happy that the compiler doesn't let me go with the various misunderstandings
I've made in my design, finally get a succesful compilation. Run the tests - it's OK. Next problem.
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5be89e2f.0107180235.726d46a8@posting.google.com>, codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:
> Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
> is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
> advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
> in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
> superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
> believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
> substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> programming problems that another language can't.

And that is precisely the reason for many computer problems today.
Your list (and I presume the lists of many others) does not even
consider reliability of the finished software as a criterion.

Yes, it is _possible_ to create reliable software with low-level
languages.  It is just less likely in practice.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

JP wrote:
> 
> Just for information. I have been told by "agency" guy that some companies
> program Ada in way that means performance is not met, i.e. 4 or more layers
> for an essentailly driver app. Meanwhile the same company will program in C
> and make it fit the performance constraints, i.e. 1-2 layers. Reason - I
> assume it the the God of OOD and OSI.. By the way, these are embedded
> systems with tight CPU requirements.

So it's dictated that when writing Ada, multiple layered abstractions
_must_ be utilized.  Regardless of that design approach's suitability to
the problem domain.  And it must therefore be forbidden from meeting the
performance requirements.

But when using C, one can use a suitable design paradigm and
subsequently meet requirements.

As a strong advocate of object oriented development, with over 15 years
experience with it, I'm allowed to say this:  Take your OO zealots out
and shoot them.  I've run into this mentality before, and there's no
arguing with them.

Good design first off means using an _appropriate_ design.


My OO zealotry horror story:  The group I was in at a former employer
inherited a system that was written in Ada 83 and it had been dictated
that it be fully object-oriented.  The conventional definition of
"object oriented" defines it as utilizing encapsulation, inheritance,
and polymorphism.  While Ada 83 supported encapsulation quite well, its
support for the other concepts was quite limited, with derived types
providing the what little support there was.

Still, to be OO, the system _had_ to have inheritance and polymorphism,
and by God it did.  Through the use of derived types, pointers, type
conversions, 'address-es of derived procedures, ad nauseum, this system
had all three components of an object oriented system.

It took weeks to fully grasp the design concept of the system, many
aspects of which were conceptual and had to be understood and respected
by the developer, rather than being implemented and enforced by the
compiler.  It was easy to make mistakes, and very difficult to track
down what was happening in this convoluted morass.

The only real way out of this mess would've been to rewrite the system.

Which we did.  And which reduced its SLOC count by a third.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> 
> Original Message From taw@users.sourceforge.net
> 
> 
> >- too strong typing
> 
> What? Sorry, but the typing is a great plus. It's true, you have to think a
> little more about it when designing types and sometimes this might be a
> little
> bit annoying ;), but is thinking really that *bad*?
> 
> If nothing helps, there's still the feature of Unchecked Type Conversions.
> At least you were warned then. :)

My nomination for "Best Kept Secret of Ada" is strong typing.  It's
almost always viewed as purely a defensive feature--to help avoid type
mismatches, and so you have to really think through your types, which
can take time, and sometimes be a pain, yadda yadda...

Strong typing lets you _embed_information_ into your program, and then
get it out again via attributes.

Consider this:

   type Altitude is range 0 .. 50_000;
   Above_Ground : Altitude;

The "defensive" interpretation says that you can now be assured an
attempt to assign a negative altitude or go into military airspace will
be immediately caught.

But look at what you get from the "informational" interpretation:
  'First, 'Last, 'Size, 'Range, 'Address, 'Min, 'Max, 'Image, 'Val,
'Pos, 'Value, 'Input, 'Output, 'Read, 'Write, 'Pred, 'Succ, 'Valid,
'Wide_Image, 'Wide_Value, 'Wide_Width, 'Width.

And that's just from a simple little scalar type definition.  Floating
and fixed point types, composite constructs, tasks, and so on, each have
their own specific means of embedding and extracting information.

Ada's strong typing produces "information dense" code.  Simple
declarations, like that of Altitude above, inherently provide
information that would otherwise have to be explicitly maintained or
derived when using other languages.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Marc A. Criley wrote:

"[..] The group I was in at a former employer
inherited a system that was written in Ada 83 and it had been dictated
that it be fully object-oriented. [..]

Still, to be OO, the system _had_ to have inheritance and polymorphism,
and by God it did.  Through the use of derived types, pointers, type
conversions, 'address-es of derived procedures, ad nauseum, this system
had all three components of an object oriented system[ eventually added
to it].

[..]

The only real way out of this mess would've been to rewrite the system.

Which we did.  And which reduced its SLOC count by a third."

So your new final version had a line count of two thirds that of the
hacked OO version; or two thirds that of the original given to the
team?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Comparing the difference between Ada and C++ to the difference between
a higher level language and assembly is very silly.  It reeks of the
arrogance that I am describing.  Thanks for proving my point.

Vinzent Hoefler <vinzent@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:<3B59EE1C@MailAndNews.com>...
> Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)
> 
> >What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
> >solve that C++ can't?
> 
> What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
> 
> 
> Vinzent.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are you
bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all?

If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits and are
willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better choice
than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for you or
help you learn the language or answer questions about the language. But a
blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you guys
bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get a
serious question answered.

Try rephrasing into a question we can answer & we'll undoubtedly get more
friendly.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107171810.1cee29c0@posting.google.com...
> I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> better than what C++ offers.  I've read posts in this news group that
> extoll Ada for it's many virtues but the truth of the matter is that
> they are overrated if they exist at all.  Are there any statistics
> that state that Ada leads to more reliable, maintainable, or robust
> code than does C++?  What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
> solve that C++ can't?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[McDoobie]

In article <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com>,
codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) wrote:

> How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> re-think their positions.

Fucking language flamewars chaffe my ass.

I use Assembler, C, Java, and Ada95. I play around with Common Lisp, Fortran, 
, Objective C, Perl, and Python.

The goal is to use the right tool for the job. Half the time I dont even have 
to write original code, I just string together the tools written by others. If 
all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
You got your zealots of all stripes, from procedural junkies to OOP 
"aficiandos". They sound like a bunch of Jehovas Witnesses.

I use Ada95 because for a lot of jobs it's the right tool for me. I write 
applications using Ada95, I do device drives with Assembler(although they
currently rank between sucks and jack-shit), I use C for inline code and 
tiny CLI apps, Java (with the IBM JVM) works good for network apps, and 
the others are great academic excercises(for me personally, they do have
powerful industrial grade features.)

Trying to decide on the "best" language is like trying to decide on the 
"best" automobile. You dont drive a station wagon to the drag strip, and 
you dont use a Stock Car for hauling freight(an eighteen wheeler usually 
works best for that, or a frieght train). The "best" language is relative to 
whos using it and what they're using it for.
There are some projects that I wouldn't touch with Ada95. There are others 
that I wouldn't use anything else but Ada95. And there are yet others where
I freely mix and match object files between languages.

No..."What is the 'best' language?" is clearly the wrong question to be 
asking. The correct question would be "Who is the best thinker?". 
And that, people, is essentially what it all comes down to.


McDoobie
chris@dont.spam.me

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> Comparing the difference between Ada and C++ to the difference between
> a higher level language and assembly is very silly.  It reeks of the
> arrogance that I am describing.  Thanks for proving my point.

No, your question is bogus and the point proven is not what you think. 
Here again is your original question:

"What class(es) of programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't."

Any computable problem can be solved by an appropriately programmed
Turing Machine (TM).  Programming language constructs can be converted
into TM instructions (albeit very long and tedious ones). Therefore a
C++ to TM compiler, an Ada to TM compiler, or an Assembly language to TM
compiler, can solve any computable problem.

That you asked this question demonstrates that you do not understand
computability.  Therefore asking to compare programming languages (of
any level) in terms of what can or cannot be programmed using them is
(very) silly.  They are TM-equivalent.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Alfred Hilscher]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.

How do _you_ write multitasking/multithreading applications in C++ ?
With a lot (really a lot) of system calls ? Very, very portable ;-) Or
by using a specialised Library ? Portable ? Readable ?

And - some of the "big" features of C++ like exception handling were
copied from Ada.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Darren New]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> better than what C++ offers.  

Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
distributed programming? 

-- 
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
       San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
          Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Pascal Obry]

Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> writes:

> Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> distributed programming? 

As somebody have pointed some months ago (can't remember who)...

Just try to emulate the single line:

        pragma Remote_Call_Interface;

in C/C++.

I know that it is not a very good point, but I wanted to add my contribution
to this very nice thread :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Brian Rogoff]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> > Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
> > is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
> > advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
> > in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
> > superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
> > believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
> > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> > programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> > all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> > productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> > studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.

Obviously any reasonable language can solve any problem, so I assume you
don't mean "C++ can't" but something more like "it's not really reasonable
to tackle this problem in C++". 

Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat language
like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical scope) 
its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some hacked
on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO. 

> From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this
> sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything.

That's unfair. First, C++ doesn't "allow me" to nest function definitions. 
You're thinking of allowing in terms of "allowing one to do questionable
things". Well, Ada allows that too, but you're less likely to ask by
accident. 

Neither Ada nor C++ allow first class functions (OK, in C/C++ functions
are arguably first class but since they're flat who cares?) and from my 
POV they are both impoverished as a result. 

> In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only
> in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from
> doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing,
> . (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then
> certainly Ada shines over all others. 

Certainly not! 

> If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand
> its value.

I don't doubt that you know Ada better than I do, but if you really
believe Ada shines above all others in type safety I suspect that you lack
a panoptic view of computer programming languages. I much prefer Ada to 
C++, but that's not unconditional love :-). 

Anyways, I'm surprised at the quality of anonymous trolls coming out of 
aol lately.

-- Brian

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

"Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote in message news:<9j3rrd$g71$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net>...
> From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> > Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
> > is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
> > advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
> > in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
> > superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
> > believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
> > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> > programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> > all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> > productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> > studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.
> >
> From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this
> sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything.
> 

Didn't say this at all.  Here's what I wrote:

For a programming language to be considered vastly superior (many Ada
advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I believe that
developers utilizing the language should show a substantial increase
in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of programming problems
that another language can't.

Nowhere did I write something about "allowing you to do almost
anything."  I don't see how I can make myself clearer but I'll try. 
Where is the proof that Ada offers software developers a substantial
increase in productivity and/or solves a class(es) of programming
problems that another language can't.  I also wrote:

I know the second reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is
vastly superior for all programming problems but it is something to
consider.

I realize that a language may provide solutions for a class of
programming problems but this does not make it a better language
necessarily.


> In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from
> doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing, (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then
> certainly Ada shines over all others. If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand its value.
> 

Au contraire.  Let me refer you to the first portion of the response I
gave:

______________________________________________________________________________
Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
in my mind.
_______________________________________________________________________________

I'm perfectly willing to accept the criteria you mention as making Ada
a better language than C++.  However, I don't think the things you
mention provide a great deal more productivity.  As a strawman let's
define productivity as number of hours per function point that yields
less than or equal to a given defect rate per hour of acceptance
testing.  For example:

Say a developer is equally competant in Ada 95 and C++. Say this
developer uses C++ and takes 40 hours of a developers time per
function point that yield a defect rate of 1 defect per 40 hours of
testing.  Could you reasonably expect the same developer to take only
20 hours per function point that yields a defect rate of 1 defect per
40 hours of testing?  I sincerely doubt it but I could convinced
otherwise.

> Some people like to chase bugs with a debugger; I even know some people who always run their programs the first time under the
> debugger, because they are sure that they will need it anyway. My personal pleasure is to take a good time understanding and
> defining what I really want to do, then write it, being happy that the compiler doesn't let me go with the various misunderstandings
> I've made in my design, finally get a succesful compilation. Run the tests - it's OK. Next problem.


This seems to be suggesting that you feel that there are great
productivity gains in using Ada.  Where is the proof that this is
indeed the case?  What studies have been done to demonstrate this? 
Using Ada is no guarentee that developers won't write crappy,
unmanagable code, and unmaintainable code.

> ---------------------------------------------------------
>            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
> Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B559E79.F21DBE5C@earthlink.net>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > 
> > Comparing the difference between Ada and C++ to the difference between
> > a higher level language and assembly is very silly.  It reeks of the
> > arrogance that I am describing.  Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> No, your question is bogus and the point proven is not what you think. 
> Here again is your original question:
> 

Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? Of course you ignore the
other question that pertains to the point I'm trying to make.

> "What class(es) of programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't."
> 
> Any computable problem can be solved by an appropriately programmed
> Turing Machine (TM).  Programming language constructs can be converted
> into TM instructions (albeit very long and tedious ones). Therefore a
> C++ to TM compiler, an Ada to TM compiler, or an Assembly language to TM
> compiler, can solve any computable problem.
> 

Of course this is true but there are certain problems that are solved
more "productively" with certain languages as opposed to other
languages.

> That you asked this question demonstrates that you do not understand
> computability.  Therefore asking to compare programming languages (of
> any level) in terms of what can or cannot be programmed using them is
> (very) silly.  They are TM-equivalent.
> 

All this to put someone down.  I suggest you read my post again and
don't quote it out of context.  It's very simple really, all one has
to do is indicate some hard evidence that developers are significantly
more productive with Ada 95 than say C++.  Do you have anything
besides your opinions?


> Marc A. Criley
> Senior Staff Engineer
> Quadrus Corporation
> www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in message news:<9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are you
> bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all?
> 

Here is what I wrote:

I think the answer is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is
substantially better than what C++ offers.

I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is
substantially better than C++.

> If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits and are
> willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better choice
> than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for you or
> help you learn the language or answer questions about the language. But a
> blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you guys
> bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get a
> serious question answered.
> 

You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
Ada 95 as opposed to C++.  I have asked if anyone knew of a study
where the conclusion was that Ada 95 increased productivity and so far
I've only been chastised.  Perhaps if we can agree on what is meant by
"significantly more productive" we could carry on a rational
discussion.  We would have to agree on the context of productivity and
how it is measured.  I offered up a strawman in another post.
> Try rephrasing into a question we can answer & we'll undoubtedly get more
> friendly.
> 
> MDC
> --
> Marin David Condic
> Senior Software Engineer
> Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
> Enabling the digital revolution
> e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
> Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/
> 
> 
> "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5be89e2f.0107171810.1cee29c0@posting.google.com...
> > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> > better than what C++ offers.  I've read posts in this news group that
> > extoll Ada for it's many virtues but the truth of the matter is that
> > they are overrated if they exist at all.  Are there any statistics
> > that state that Ada leads to more reliable, maintainable, or robust
> > code than does C++?  What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
> > solve that C++ can't?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

I agree with your points but I'm quoting something that a posters to
this newsgroup has on his web page.  I believe the opinion that "Ada
is the best language" is shared by many of the readers of this
newsgroup as evidenced by the zeal in which people seek to be critical
and refuse to discuss the points I am trying to make.  You have
addressed the issue more or less and I'm appreciative of that.

"McDoobie" <chris@dont.spam.me> wrote in message news:<0Bh57.24338$JN6.5004065@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
> In article <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com>,
> codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) wrote:
> 
> > How come it is not more widely accepted?  The stuff I read here states
> > that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.  From what I can
> > tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.  I think many who
> > share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> > significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> > re-think their positions.
> 
> Fucking language flamewars chaffe my ass.
> 
> I use Assembler, C, Java, and Ada95. I play around with Common Lisp, Fortran, 
> , Objective C, Perl, and Python.
> 
> The goal is to use the right tool for the job. Half the time I dont even have 
> to write original code, I just string together the tools written by others. If 
> all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> You got your zealots of all stripes, from procedural junkies to OOP 
> "aficiandos". They sound like a bunch of Jehovas Witnesses.
> 
> I use Ada95 because for a lot of jobs it's the right tool for me. I write 
> applications using Ada95, I do device drives with Assembler(although they
> currently rank between sucks and jack-shit), I use C for inline code and 
> tiny CLI apps, Java (with the IBM JVM) works good for network apps, and 
> the others are great academic excercises(for me personally, they do have
> powerful industrial grade features.)
> 
> Trying to decide on the "best" language is like trying to decide on the 
> "best" automobile. You dont drive a station wagon to the drag strip, and 
> you dont use a Stock Car for hauling freight(an eighteen wheeler usually 
> works best for that, or a frieght train). The "best" language is relative to 
> whos using it and what they're using it for.
> There are some projects that I wouldn't touch with Ada95. There are others 
> that I wouldn't use anything else but Ada95. And there are yet others where
> I freely mix and match object files between languages.
> 
> No..."What is the 'best' language?" is clearly the wrong question to be 
> asking. The correct question would be "Who is the best thinker?". 
> And that, people, is essentially what it all comes down to.
> 
> 
> McDoobie
> chris@dont.spam.me

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de> wrote in message news:<3B55B01A.DAC06D79@icn.siemens.de>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > 
> > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> > programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> > all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> > productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> > studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.
> 
> How do _you_ write multitasking/multithreading applications in C++ ?
> With a lot (really a lot) of system calls ? Very, very portable ;-) 

Do you have a metric for measuring the increase in productivity that
this brings about?  I hope the compiler is consistent from OS to OS
for Ada.  How often is portability from one system to the next
required so that all one has to do is recompile and everything will
work the same needed?  Not very often, almost never IMO.  BTW I like
the Ada 95 concurrancy model a lot.

>Or
> by using a specialised Library ? Portable ? Readable ?
> 

I have addressed portability.  Do we have a metric for readable that
we could use?  Or is it just another opinion.

> And - some of the "big" features of C++ like exception handling were
> copied from Ada.

So what?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3B55C6B0.C2ED36@san.rr.com>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > 
> > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> > better than what C++ offers.  
> 
> Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> distributed programming?

No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
significantly by having them available.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107181114410.3159-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>...
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> > From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> > > Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
> > > is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
> > > advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
> > > in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
> > > superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
> > > believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
> > > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> > > programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> > > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> > > all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> > > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> > > productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> > > studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> > > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.
> 
> Obviously any reasonable language can solve any problem, so I assume you
> don't mean "C++ can't" but something more like "it's not really reasonable
> to tackle this problem in C++". 
> 

Exactly thanks for stating it more clearly than I did.

> Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat language
> like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical scope) 
> its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some hacked
> on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO. 
> 

I agree with you.  I really do like the Ada 95 concurrancy model. 
However, I doubt if the gain in productivity is substantial but I
could be convinced otherwise.  Let me put it this way.   If Ada 95 is
to be adopted on a much larger scale than it is now managers and
developers are going to have to be convinced that there is a distinct
advantage to using Ada 95 over some other language.  Your points about
concurrancy are certainly valid, however, I'm afraid that the typical
manager (or developer for that matter) does not see this as a
compelling reason.  Something that demonstates that the development
cycle can be significantly improved upon would command their
attention.  Here we have what many consider to be "the best" language
and it's utilization and acceptance seem to be waning (Ada is a dead
language).

> > From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this
> > sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything.
> 
> That's unfair. First, C++ doesn't "allow me" to nest function definitions. 
> You're thinking of allowing in terms of "allowing one to do questionable
> things". Well, Ada allows that too, but you're less likely to ask by
> accident. 
> 
> Neither Ada nor C++ allow first class functions (OK, in C/C++ functions
> are arguably first class but since they're flat who cares?) and from my 
> POV they are both impoverished as a result. 
> 
> > In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only
> > in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from
> > doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing,
> > . (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then
> > certainly Ada shines over all others. 
> 
> Certainly not! 
> 
> > If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand
> > its value.
> 
> I don't doubt that you know Ada better than I do, but if you really
> believe Ada shines above all others in type safety I suspect that you lack
> a panoptic view of computer programming languages. I much prefer Ada to 
> C++, but that's not unconditional love :-). 
> 
> Anyways, I'm surprised at the quality of anonymous trolls coming out of 
> aol lately.
> 
> -- Brian

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David C. Hoos]

You might want to take a look at this item:
http://greenlime.com/Ada-Malaysia/

----- Original Message -----
From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?


> Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<3B55C6B0.C2ED36@san.rr.com>...
> > codesavvy wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> > > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> > > better than what C++ offers.
> >
> > Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> > real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> > distributed programming?
>
> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> significantly by having them available.
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tucker Taft]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> better than what C++ offers.  

Ada compilers catch a much larger number of errors
at compile-time than C++ compilers.  That is the
major advantage, in my view.  Furthermore, Ada programs
can say "more" things which are checked by the compiler
(such as numeric type distinctions, index type for arrays,
generic formal parameter requirements, etc.), so that
not only does an Ada compiler catch more errors,
programmers can make more compile-time distinctions
which helps reduce subsequent "bit decay" during maintenance.

The net effect is that Ada programs tend to be much
more "solid" in terms of bugs/line over their lifetime.
Or equivalently, it costs significantly less to get an
Ada system to the required level of quality, because the
language and the tools help minimize the number of bugs
that make it into the test and integration phase.

> ... I've read posts in this news group that
> extoll Ada for it's many virtues but the truth of the matter is that
> they are overrated if they exist at all.  Are there any statistics
> that state that Ada leads to more reliable, maintainable, or robust
> code than does C++? 

Yes, there are several studies which confirm that test and integration
requires much less time with Ada systems, and that error rates are
lower after deployment.  Certainly anecdotal evidence in companies
that do projects in both languages is that, even with the exact
same programming staff, Ada systems generally have lower error rates
and/or higher overall design-to-deployment productivity.

> ... What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
> solve that C++ can't?

Safety critical systems, where you can't afford to be debugging
in the "field."

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@avercom.net   http://www.avercom.net
Chief Technology Officer, AverCom Corporation (A Titan Company) 
Bedford, MA  USA (AverCom was formerly the Commercial Division of AverStar:
http://www.averstar.com/~stt)

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com...
>
> I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is
> substantially better than C++.

Well, having used both languages, I'd beg to differ. I think that Ada offers
a lot more than C++ in the way of safety and correctness. I think its syntax
and semantics are more regular, clearly defined and less subject to
erroneous use. I think Ada provides for multi-threaded applications in a
portable way. I think its better suited to realtime systems and systems
requiring high integrity and/or long life. I think that makes Ada
substantially better than C++ - depending on what your definition of
"Substantially" is.

There are any number of other advantages Ada has over C++ - if you're
interested, there are websites that will start turning up resources for you.

>
> You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> Ada 95 as opposed to C++.  I have asked if anyone knew of a study
> where the conclusion was that Ada 95 increased productivity and so far
> I've only been chastised.  Perhaps if we can agree on what is meant by
> "significantly more productive" we could carry on a rational
> discussion.  We would have to agree on the context of productivity and
> how it is measured.  I offered up a strawman in another post.

I had a ten year long study of defects and productivity relating to Ada when
I was in a past life. (I was the stuckee for Metrics.) While the study was
not comparing Ada to C++, it was comparing it to other languages that we
used in developing realtime control systems. Over ten years of use with Ada
showed that we doubled productivity and reduced our error rates by a factor
of four. Would C++ have done the same? Nobody will ever know in this
instance because it was not done, but my guess is "No". Why? It doesn't
provide the kinds of things that Ada provides that we attributed our success
to. (Whenever you reduce errors, productivity goes up because you aren't
fixing bugs - you're developing new code. Hence, our error analysis was
telling us the kinds of things we *weren't* messing up because of Ada's
safety features and I see no similar safety features in C++ that would have
caught these things.)

There may be other studies. I'd start looking at the AdaPower website and
follow links to other things like the AdaIC, etc. Studies *do* exist
indicating productivity boosts. But I think more significance should be
given to error reduction (at least for some domains) because of its
reduction of liability as well as its contribution to productivity. (Think
of it this way: Suppose you could develop code equally as fast in Ada and
C++. Suppose your Ada product has fewer bugs when it makes it to the field.
The more buggy C++ product damages your company reputation, reduces sales,
maybe increases warranty costs (think embedded systems) etc. The Ada product
does the same thing and got to market at the same time, but now doesn't
dammage your reputation, creates happier customers, etc. Don't you win this
way?)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Darren New]

> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> Ada developer is using these features? 

I think that begs the question. If I'm writing a program that needs to
be portable and multitasking, then it makes me much more productive to
have the ability to do that. What you're saying is that you've never
written programs that need the advanced features that Ada supports that
aren't found in C++. That's fine, but it's not saying anything about
Ada. If you've only ever written programs for one platform, you might
not value portability, but that doesn't mean it doesn't enhance
productivity when you *do* need it.

For that matter, I'd expect that if you want a productivity study, study
a project written in Ada where the author of the contract specified Ada
as the delivery language. I expect the Ada programmers will be much more
productive in fulfilling this contract than the C++ programmers. This
again says nothing about Ada or C++.

So what question are you actually asking? Certainly not the one in the
subject line.

If you're asking "Is Ada better than C++?" then that's one question. If
you're asking "is it sufficiently better than C++" then you have to
specify the field you're interested in.

If Ada does everything C++ does and more, but you don't need the "and
more", that doesn't mean Ada is not as good as C++. It just means
they're equally good *for you*.

C++ is clearly an awful language for drawing pie-charts, compared to
Excel. So?

-- 
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
       San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
          Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Darren New]

> All this to put someone down.  I suggest you read my post again and
> don't quote it out of context.  It's very simple really, all one has
> to do is indicate some hard evidence that developers are significantly
> more productive with Ada 95 than say C++.  Do you have anything
> besides your opinions?

This is a bogus question. People have provided a list of areas in which
Ada makes programmers more productive than C++ does. For example, in the
areas of portable real-time systems, portable multithreaded code,
portable distributed programming, etc.

There are other areas where Ada and C++ are approximately equivalent.

Then you ask for hard evidence where Ada is superior to C++. Well,
nobody is going to do a study where portable distributed multitasking is
vital to success and code it in C++ and Ada just to see which works
better. That's just silly.

Show me hard evidence that drawing pie charts in Excel is easier than
drawing pie charts by flogging the bits of the video card in raw C
without any libraries? What? No evidence out there? Then surely Excel's
no better than C for doing that.

If your hypothetical managers aren't doing stuff where Ada is superior
to C++, then they might not get "sufficient" productivity increase out
of learning Ada as compared to knowing what they already know. So?

-- 
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
       San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
          Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Hambut]

> 
> This seems to be suggesting that you feel that there are great
> productivity gains in using Ada.  Where is the proof that this is
> indeed the case?  What studies have been done to demonstrate this? 
> Using Ada is no guarentee that developers won't write crappy,
> unmanagable code, and unmaintainable code.
> 

"Comparing Development Costs of C and Ada" at
http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp provides a fairly
good study comparing C and Ada.  Worth a look.

(Aside: It would be great to be able point this type of query at a
FAQ.  Perhaps even better if it was posted regularly to this
newsgroup, people could then find it in a search fairly easily.  Does
one exist?  Would it be sensible to post it regularly? )

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

There is one other thing to bring up along these lines. Are there any
studies with hard data that C++ shows a productivity increase over
programming in C? The point is, the industry just simply doesn't do this
kind of study. If someone had such a study of C++ vs C, we could sit here
for months arguing over all the relevant factors and trying to decide if the
syntax of the language itself was the reason for the boost or if it was the
presence of libraries of code to be leveraged or was it changes in
technology, yada yada yada.

There is some anectdotal evidence to site that Ada is more productive than
C++. There are some reasons based on logic and analysis that indicate that
Ada *ought to be* more productive than C++. There are actually a few studies
that are at least half-way scientific that indicate Ada buys you
productivity (and error reduction). Dr. McCormic's study is the only one I
know of that comes close to a controlled experiment and *it* shows a
productivity increase. I think this may very well be more evidence than is
available to indicate that C++ is more productive than C - but would anybody
seriously challenge the latter? Why does Ada have to pass some test that C++
can't pass?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Darren New" <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B55FFD5.9927BD6@san.rr.com...
>
> This is a bogus question. People have provided a list of areas in which
> Ada makes programmers more productive than C++ does. For example, in the
> areas of portable real-time systems, portable multithreaded code,
> portable distributed programming, etc.
>
> There are other areas where Ada and C++ are approximately equivalent.
>
> Then you ask for hard evidence where Ada is superior to C++. Well,
> nobody is going to do a study where portable distributed multitasking is
> vital to success and code it in C++ and Ada just to see which works
> better. That's just silly.
>
> Show me hard evidence that drawing pie charts in Excel is easier than
> drawing pie charts by flogging the bits of the video card in raw C
> without any libraries? What? No evidence out there? Then surely Excel's
> no better than C for doing that.
>
> If your hypothetical managers aren't doing stuff where Ada is superior
> to C++, then they might not get "sufficient" productivity increase out
> of learning Ada as compared to knowing what they already know. So?
>
> --
> Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
>        San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
>           Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

This link and the one's concerning Dr. McCormic's study should be in the
FAQ.

http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/ADACASE.HTM
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2000/aug/mccormick.asp

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Hambut" <hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb75c450.0107181348.7a39edce@posting.google.com...
> >
> > This seems to be suggesting that you feel that there are great
> > productivity gains in using Ada.  Where is the proof that this is
> > indeed the case?  What studies have been done to demonstrate this?
> > Using Ada is no guarentee that developers won't write crappy,
> > unmanagable code, and unmaintainable code.
> >
>
> "Comparing Development Costs of C and Ada" at
> http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp provides a fairly
> good study comparing C and Ada.  Worth a look.
>
> (Aside: It would be great to be able point this type of query at a
> FAQ.  Perhaps even better if it was posted regularly to this
> newsgroup, people could then find it in a search fairly easily.  Does
> one exist?  Would it be sensible to post it regularly? )

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Ed Falis]

codesavvy wrote:

> You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> Ada 95 as opposed to C++.  I have asked if anyone knew of a study
> where the conclusion was that Ada 95 increased productivity and so far
> I've only been chastised.

Not to attribute intentions to you, but generally any demand in newsgroups for studies in this kind of area is a clear
win for the challenger, because there has been so little done in that regard, due to expense.  As a debating tactic,
it throws the onus on the person being challenged, as though only that person is making an assertion, which is usually
not the case.

Meta-discussion aside, as far as I know, no such studies exist for Ada 95 vs C++.  Are you aware of any regarding C++
vs "language x"?  For that matter, I can't really think of much along these lines anywhere, excepting the function
point comparisons (some hypothetical) that Capers Jones had/has somewhere on the web.  Actually, I just looked it up
for you: http://www.spr.com/library/0langtbl.htm.  Note that the Ada 95 figure is projected, and that C++ and Ada 95
are listed with close enough numbers to be a wash using that projection.

There is one fairly thorough study of Ada 83 vs C that was done by Steve Zeigler of Verdix before the company was
acquired by Rational.  I believe that study is still available on the Rational website.  Try
http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp

The problem, of course, is that we don't really know whether it generalizes to a comparison of Ada 95 and C++ - the
most it can do is lead one to surmise.

- Ed

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Pascal Obry]

codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:

> Do you have a metric for measuring the increase in productivity that
> this brings about?  I hope the compiler is consistent from OS to OS
> for Ada.  How often is portability from one system to the next
> required so that all one has to do is recompile and everything will
> work the same needed?  Not very often, almost never IMO.  

So you've just shown your complete ignorance in this area !

Thanks,
Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com>, codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:
> "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in message news:<9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
>> Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are you
>> bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all?
>> 
> 
> Here is what I wrote:
> 
> I think the answer is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is
> substantially better than what C++ offers.
> 
> I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is
> substantially better than C++.
> 
>> If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits and are
>> willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better choice
>> than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for you or
>> help you learn the language or answer questions about the language. But a
>> blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you guys
>> bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get a
>> serious question answered.
>> 
> 
> You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> Ada 95 as opposed to C++.

You started with "nothing to offer", but seem to have devolved into
"no productivity advantage to offer".  The reason I use Ada is not
productivity, but correctness.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[chris.danx]

> > codesavvy wrote:
> > >
> > > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> > > programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> > > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> > > all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> > > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> > > productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> > > studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> > > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.
> >
> > How do _you_ write multitasking/multithreading applications in C++ ?
> > With a lot (really a lot) of system calls ? Very, very portable ;-)
>
> Do you have a metric for measuring the increase in productivity that
> this brings about?  I hope the compiler is consistent from OS to OS
> for Ada.  How often is portability from one system to the next
> required so that all one has to do is recompile and everything will
> work the same needed?  Not very often, almost never IMO.

I missed that first time!

I'm no expert, but portability is an important consideration (to me and to
others).  In some cases with Ada 95 it is possible to eliminate the need to
change an application at all, though this is rare (but doable!).  In many cases,
there is the possibility to wrap the dependancies in a few wee modules and
change those.  While you can do this in C(++) it's a lot harder to maintain and
even get right.

With C++ you get wide variety of implementations which don't agree and fudgeing
and ugly hacks to support it's OO system.  This can b*gg*r porting programs in
C++.  An Ada programmer should (and usually would) be aware of any ambigous
compiler related behaviour and devise a manner to deal with that behaviour
accordingly (or note it, to allow porting to be smoother), IMO.  Portability is
largely a no no with C++.

Ada 95 on the other hand gives you the ability to specify the layout of
structures with greater precision (in general).  This gives it an edge over C++.

Don't get me wrong Ada's crappy for somethings (C++ would be crap too), and for
such problems something more appropriate is used (e.g. compilers -- you can
write a compiler in Ada 95 or C++, but an FPL can express it more concisely and
efficiently, and for me the FPL wins here).


> BTW I like
> the Ada 95 concurrancy model a lot.
>
> >Or
> > by using a specialised Library ? Portable ? Readable ?
> >
>
> I have addressed portability.  Do we have a metric for readable that
> we could use?  Or is it just another opinion.

No you haven't.  You just said "hey, who cares about portability? No One, that's
who!" which is completely ignorant and contrary to fact.  A lot of ppl care
about portability (e.g. me, Sun, and a whole host of other ppl), and just
because it isn't a consideration to you doesn't mean it isn't a consideration to
others.


~Danx

p.s. for somethings portability is impossible and throwing a problem like that
at anyone shows ignorance and arrogance.  In other words don't use examples for
which portability is nigh on impossible, otherwise you'll end up with John
Prescott Syndrome (i.e. egg on your face).

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Beard, Frank]

I generally don't like getting into these discussions because it's
all irrelevant anyway.  The volume (or success) of C++ to Ada has
nothing to do with the relative quality/productivity/superiority
of Ada relative to C++.  It has to do with initial investment.
C (leading into C++) had a 10 or 15 year head start on Ada.  When
Ada came about, most of the C compilers were free, or near free, 
while the Ada compilers were very expensive.  When a manager looks
at initial costs (no matter how near-sighted that may be), and says

   "I can use a free, or near free, C compiler, or pay $20+ for an
   Ada compiler.  Let's see which way to go?"

Even with the Ada mandate, there were plenty of groups violating it,
mostly due to cost.  Even when we moved to the PC arena back in 1989,
the Alsys compiler was $5K, while Turbo C was $59.  Even after the big
Alsys price cut, it was still $2500 per copy.  So, the low cost of C
lead to wide use from the home hacker to company software teams, which
led to lots of libraries for just about everything under the sun.
Granted the initial cost argument has not been true for a number
of years now, but it doesn't negate the head start enjoyed by C/C++.

Fortunately, I worked for managers that were not so near-sighted and
chose Ada, but I was around plenty that went the other way.

While I agree with McDoobie that different languages have their
strong points and are better in different situations, the question
"what language is the best" translates, in my mind, to "what is
the best general purpose language".  To me that is Ada (though I
haven't used Eiffel and have only looked at Java).  Not just from
what I've read, but what I've experienced as well.  I've moved 
from VAX VMS to LynxOS to IBM MVS back to HP-UX to Windows, with
very little change to code.

Similar C/C++ ports were nightmares.  Anything that had to do
with shared memory (global sections on VAX), threads/processes,
interprocess communication, semaphores, etc., were extremely
painful to port in C/C++.  All of which were nicely taken care of
by highly portable tasks in Ada.  Fortunately, I didn't have to do
an of the C/C++ ports.

Of course Ada can't be the best for all situations (at least not yet),
but if it's good enough to do the job well, then I don't care to
learn the "better" language for that isolated advantage.  I admire 
McDoobie and others who can work in multiple languages fluently.
My mind just doesn't work well that way.  I prefer to choose what
I think is the best overall and go with it, until something forces
me to use another.  I've done Assembly (VAX), Fortran, Pascal,
C/C++, and Ada.  I've seen a number of studies over the years that
showed Ada superiority to C/C++ in readability, error detection,
reliability, SLOC reduction, maintainability, etc. But I'm not even
going to bother trying to look them up, because it didn't make a
difference the first time, and it won't make a difference now.

With the huge amount of libraries and interfaces defined for C/C++
(and Java), most C/C++ programmers wouldn't consider switching to
Ada unless it had at least the same amount, and probably not even
then, despite the technical advantages of Ada.  Ada has to at least
catch up, and be able to adapt to new hardware and interfaces as
fast as C/C++.  Plus we need innovation that will put Ada in the
lead instead of playing catch up.  I just wish I knew how to do
it.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: codesavvy@aol.com [mailto:codesavvy@aol.com]

> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> significantly by having them available.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Mike Silva]

Very True!  If you use Ada you *will* get spoiled by attributes!

Mike

"Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B5573DA.5ABA8EA7@earthlink.net>...
> Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> > 
> > Original Message From taw@users.sourceforge.net
> > 
> > 
> > >- too strong typing
> > 
> > What? Sorry, but the typing is a great plus. It's true, you have to think a
> > little more about it when designing types and sometimes this might be a
> > little
> > bit annoying ;), but is thinking really that *bad*?
> > 
> > If nothing helps, there's still the feature of Unchecked Type Conversions.
> > At least you were warned then. :)
> 
> My nomination for "Best Kept Secret of Ada" is strong typing.  It's
> almost always viewed as purely a defensive feature--to help avoid type
> mismatches, and so you have to really think through your types, which
> can take time, and sometimes be a pain, yadda yadda...
> 
> Strong typing lets you _embed_information_ into your program, and then
> get it out again via attributes.
> 
> Consider this:
> 
>    type Altitude is range 0 .. 50_000;
>    Above_Ground : Altitude;
> 
> The "defensive" interpretation says that you can now be assured an
> attempt to assign a negative altitude or go into military airspace will
> be immediately caught.
> 
> But look at what you get from the "informational" interpretation:
>   'First, 'Last, 'Size, 'Range, 'Address, 'Min, 'Max, 'Image, 'Val,
> 'Pos, 'Value, 'Input, 'Output, 'Read, 'Write, 'Pred, 'Succ, 'Valid,
> 'Wide_Image, 'Wide_Value, 'Wide_Width, 'Width.
> 
> And that's just from a simple little scalar type definition.  Floating
> and fixed point types, composite constructs, tasks, and so on, each have
> their own specific means of embedding and extracting information.
> 
> Ada's strong typing produces "information dense" code.  Simple
> declarations, like that of Altitude above, inherently provide
> information that would otherwise have to be explicitly maintained or
> derived when using other languages.
> 
> Marc A. Criley
> Senior Staff Engineer
> Quadrus Corporation
> www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Hazel]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> There is one other thing to bring up along these lines. Are there any
> studies with hard data that C++ shows a productivity increase over
> programming in C? The point is, the industry just simply doesn't do this
> kind of study. If someone had such a study of C++ vs C, we could sit here
> for months arguing over all the relevant factors and trying to decide if the
> syntax of the language itself was the reason for the boost or if it was the
> presence of libraries of code to be leveraged or was it changes in
> technology, yada yada yada.
> 
> There is some anectdotal evidence to site that Ada is more productive than
> C++. There are some reasons based on logic and analysis that indicate that
> Ada *ought to be* more productive than C++. There are actually a few studies
> that are at least half-way scientific that indicate Ada buys you
> productivity (and error reduction). Dr. McCormic's study is the only one I
> know of that comes close to a controlled experiment and *it* shows a
> productivity increase. I think this may very well be more evidence than is
> available to indicate that C++ is more productive than C - but would anybody
> seriously challenge the latter? Why does Ada have to pass some test that C++
> can't pass?


Is Dr. McCormic the professor with the software controlling model trains?  If
so, I believe his data showed an enormous productivity increase over C (C++
????).

Larry

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[James Rogers]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3B55C6B0.C2ED36@san.rr.com>...
> > codesavvy wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> > > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> > > better than what C++ offers.
> >
> > Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> > real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> > distributed programming?
> 
> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> significantly by having them available.

I do not have a study, but I do have an example from my own experience.

I worked in a company doing real time robotics development. Part of 
that work involved active participation on the Working Group for the
US Army's Joint Architecture for Unmanned Ground Systems. Other
participants represented other companies, the Army, the Navy, 
the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and some universities. My group was the only group
using Ada. All the other groups were using C++. Over a period of
two years my group was able to implement, from the ground up, a
complete system using the initial version of the JAUGS architecture
standard. No other group came even close.

Now, it could have been the size of our development team. After all,
we had the advantage of doing all our work with a three person team.
The other groups were hampered by the existence of much larger
teams. We were also the only team to attempt a design using
concurrency. Our system had about 75 tasks running on the 
vehicle control unit and another 50 tasks running on the operator
control unit. All the other teams were using very rigidly designed
nested control loops.

Now, I know this probably is no measure of productivity, but our
solution was also highly configurable in terms of the complexity
of our target vehicle. No recoding was needed to move the controls
from a bulldozer to a forklift, even though the control algorithms
for tracked and wheeled vehicles are quite different. No other 
team even attempted such flexibility.

One small example of Ada productivity advantage was the development
of a generic protected bounded queue. It took less than one day to 
code and test this little item, which was a critical element both 
in our design and in the overall JAUGS architecture. The equivalent
functionality in C++ took other teams weeks to code and test.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From gerhard@bigfoot.de
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:43:59 -0400, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>>Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)
>>
>>>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>>>solve that C++ can't?
>>
>>What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
>
>OOP. Generic programming. Programming in the large. ...

As Lutz already said, this is all possible, although if you really do it, 
you 
might be a little bit masochistic. ;)

>One might argue that Ada solves them better, though.

That was my point.


Vinzent.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)

>Vinzent Hoefler <vinzent@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message 
news:<3B59EE1C@MailAndNews.com>...
>> Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)
>>
>> >What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>> >solve that C++ can't?
>>
>> What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
>>
>Comparing the difference between Ada and C++ to the difference between
>a higher level language and assembly is very silly.

In fact, not really - as the answer to your question and my question is 
obviously the same: Exactly none, but in most cases it does it better.

BTW, I guess, it wouldn't hurt you to have a look at

http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Page_hla/hla_examples/hla_examples.html

Just to prevent you from thinking that assembly can't be high level.

>It reeks of the arrogance that I am describing.

Yes, I'm arrogant.

>Thanks for proving my point.

2 is prime. So all even numbers are prime. Is this really what you wanted to 
say?


Vinzent.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)

>Vinzent Hoefler <vinzent@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message 
news:<3B59EE1C@MailAndNews.com>...
>> Original Message From codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)
>>
>> >What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>> >solve that C++ can't?
>>
>> What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
>>
>Comparing the difference between Ada and C++ to the difference between
>a higher level language and assembly is very silly.

In fact, not really - as the answer to your question and my question is 
obviously the same: Exactly none, but in most cases it does it better.

BTW, I guess, it wouldn't hurt you to have a look at

http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Page_hla/hla_examples/hla_examples.html

Just to prevent you from thinking that assembly can't be high level.

>It reeks of the arrogance that I am describing.

Yes, I'm arrogant. But that does not have anything to do with the 
programming 
languages I'm using.

>Thanks for proving my point.

2 is prime. So all even numbers are prime. Is this really what you wanted to 
say?


Vinzent.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2376 bytes --]


"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> a �crit dans le message news: 5be89e2f.0107181029.1e09f6c0@posting.google.com...
> Didn't say this at all.  Here's what I wrote:
>
> For a programming language to be considered vastly superior (many Ada
> advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I believe that
> developers utilizing the language should show a substantial increase
> in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of programming problems
> that another language can't.
>  [...]
OK, I got you point. You are really interested in productivity, all other things being equal. We could argue on this, but I won't;
if it's your view of a better language, fine.

There have been a number of studies addressing productivity and error rates in Ada compared to other programming languages. One of
the first ones was the Reifer study, that showed a minimum increase of 50% of productivity using Ada. It is a bit outdated now, and
I have it only on paper; I'm sorry I cannot provide any URL.

Another interesting one is the Rational study comparing development costs of Ada and C (not C++, agreed). I don't have the exact URL
at hand, but this one should be easily found.

There are lots of personnal experience too. Here is one from one of my clients (I guess he's reading this newsgroup, so I let to him
to disclose more if he wishes). One team was developping a project in Ada, and another one in C++. Both projects were very similar,
but the Ada team was 3 people, and the C++ team was 15. The Ada team achieved its goals, but the C++ team never did. Some times ago,
there was a proposal to add new functionnalities to the (Ada) software. Since the management was afraid of the possible costs, they
asked for an external expert to evaluate the time and cost of the modification. Given the context, the team kept a very precise
track of all effort involved. Result: the modification was performed with exactly 1/3 of the cost estimated by the expert according
to "normal practice".

This is just one example. But I think you'll find many others from the people here. And although examples don't *prove* anything, a
number of converging examples should be a serious hint that there is really something significant behind.

--
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Michal Nowak]

codesavvy wrote:

> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in

Maybe it is not exactly what you want, but it's worthy reading:
http://www.adahome.com/History/Steelman/steeltab.htm

-Mike


------------------------
Mike Nowak
mailto: vinnie@inetia.pl

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3B565EC1.DE2EEF0F@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> codesavvy wrote:
>> 
>> Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3B55C6B0.C2ED36@san.rr.com>...
>> > codesavvy wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
>> > > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
>> > > better than what C++ offers.
>> >
>> > Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
>> > real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
>> > distributed programming?
>> 
>> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
>> Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
>> Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
>> significantly by having them available.
> 
> I do not have a study, but I do have an example from my own experience.

> Technology, and some universities. My group was the only group
> using Ada. All the other groups were using C++. Over a period of
> two years my group was able to implement, from the ground up, a
> complete system using the initial version of the JAUGS architecture
> standard. No other group came even close.

So if "productivity" is systems produced per two-year period...

> Now, it could have been the size of our development team. After all,
> we had the advantage of doing all our work with a three person team.
> The other groups were hampered by the existence of much larger
> teams.

Yes, using less budget is certainly cheating :-)

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Alfred Hilscher]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de> wrote in message news:<3B55B01A.DAC06D79@icn.siemens.de>...
> > codesavvy wrote:
> > And - some of the "big" features of C++ like exception handling were
> > copied from Ada.
> 
> So what?

So what ? So why do you think someone has created C++ when all features
(Template == generics, exceptions and so on), were already available in
Ada ? What is the superior feature that justifies the creation of C++ at
a time where Ada were already long available ?
So _your_ question should not "what is the advantage of Ada over C++"
your question should be "what was the advatange of creating C++" ? So
_if_ you know the answer, please let us know.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de>

>What is the superior feature that justifies the creation of C++ at
>a time where Ada were already long available ?

Kind of backwards compatibility, I guess. It looks like C.


Vinzent.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Excellent post Jim.  

James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3B565EC1.DE2EEF0F@worldnet.att.net>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > 
> > Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3B55C6B0.C2ED36@san.rr.com>...
> > > codesavvy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> > > > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> > > > better than what C++ offers.
> > >
> > > Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> > > real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> > > distributed programming?
> > 
> > No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> > Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> > Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> > significantly by having them available.
> 
> I do not have a study, but I do have an example from my own experience.
> 
> I worked in a company doing real time robotics development. Part of 
> that work involved active participation on the Working Group for the
> US Army's Joint Architecture for Unmanned Ground Systems. Other
> participants represented other companies, the Army, the Navy, 
> the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and
> Technology, and some universities. My group was the only group
> using Ada. All the other groups were using C++. Over a period of
> two years my group was able to implement, from the ground up, a
> complete system using the initial version of the JAUGS architecture
> standard. No other group came even close.
> 
> Now, it could have been the size of our development team. After all,
> we had the advantage of doing all our work with a three person team.
> The other groups were hampered by the existence of much larger
> teams. We were also the only team to attempt a design using
> concurrency. Our system had about 75 tasks running on the 
> vehicle control unit and another 50 tasks running on the operator
> control unit. All the other teams were using very rigidly designed
> nested control loops.
> 
> Now, I know this probably is no measure of productivity, but our
> solution was also highly configurable in terms of the complexity
> of our target vehicle. No recoding was needed to move the controls
> from a bulldozer to a forklift, even though the control algorithms
> for tracked and wheeled vehicles are quite different. No other 
> team even attempted such flexibility.
> 
> One small example of Ada productivity advantage was the development
> of a generic protected bounded queue. It took less than one day to 
> code and test this little item, which was a critical element both 
> in our design and in the overall JAUGS architecture. The equivalent
> functionality in C++ took other teams weeks to code and test.
> 
> Jim Rogers
> Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Frank I think you make a lot of good points.  If Ada was to ever be
more widely adopted developers and managers have to be convinced that
the benifits of using Ada as oppossed to C++ have the sufficient
"payback" to make the transition worth it.

"Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil> wrote in message news:<mailman.995501845.19985.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> I generally don't like getting into these discussions because it's
> all irrelevant anyway.  The volume (or success) of C++ to Ada has
> nothing to do with the relative quality/productivity/superiority
> of Ada relative to C++.  It has to do with initial investment.
> C (leading into C++) had a 10 or 15 year head start on Ada.  When
> Ada came about, most of the C compilers were free, or near free, 
> while the Ada compilers were very expensive.  When a manager looks
> at initial costs (no matter how near-sighted that may be), and says
> 
>    "I can use a free, or near free, C compiler, or pay $20+ for an
>    Ada compiler.  Let's see which way to go?"
> 
> Even with the Ada mandate, there were plenty of groups violating it,
> mostly due to cost.  Even when we moved to the PC arena back in 1989,
> the Alsys compiler was $5K, while Turbo C was $59.  Even after the big
> Alsys price cut, it was still $2500 per copy.  So, the low cost of C
> lead to wide use from the home hacker to company software teams, which
> led to lots of libraries for just about everything under the sun.
> Granted the initial cost argument has not been true for a number
> of years now, but it doesn't negate the head start enjoyed by C/C++.
> 
> Fortunately, I worked for managers that were not so near-sighted and
> chose Ada, but I was around plenty that went the other way.
> 
> While I agree with McDoobie that different languages have their
> strong points and are better in different situations, the question
> "what language is the best" translates, in my mind, to "what is
> the best general purpose language".  To me that is Ada (though I
> haven't used Eiffel and have only looked at Java).  Not just from
> what I've read, but what I've experienced as well.  I've moved 
> from VAX VMS to LynxOS to IBM MVS back to HP-UX to Windows, with
> very little change to code.
> 
> Similar C/C++ ports were nightmares.  Anything that had to do
> with shared memory (global sections on VAX), threads/processes,
> interprocess communication, semaphores, etc., were extremely
> painful to port in C/C++.  All of which were nicely taken care of
> by highly portable tasks in Ada.  Fortunately, I didn't have to do
> an of the C/C++ ports.
> 
> Of course Ada can't be the best for all situations (at least not yet),
> but if it's good enough to do the job well, then I don't care to
> learn the "better" language for that isolated advantage.  I admire 
> McDoobie and others who can work in multiple languages fluently.
> My mind just doesn't work well that way.  I prefer to choose what
> I think is the best overall and go with it, until something forces
> me to use another.  I've done Assembly (VAX), Fortran, Pascal,
> C/C++, and Ada.  I've seen a number of studies over the years that
> showed Ada superiority to C/C++ in readability, error detection,
> reliability, SLOC reduction, maintainability, etc. But I'm not even
> going to bother trying to look them up, because it didn't make a
> difference the first time, and it won't make a difference now.
> 
> With the huge amount of libraries and interfaces defined for C/C++
> (and Java), most C/C++ programmers wouldn't consider switching to
> Ada unless it had at least the same amount, and probably not even
> then, despite the technical advantages of Ada.  Ada has to at least
> catch up, and be able to adapt to new hardware and interfaces as
> fast as C/C++.  Plus we need innovation that will put Ada in the
> lead instead of playing catch up.  I just wish I knew how to do
> it.
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: codesavvy@aol.com [mailto:codesavvy@aol.com]
> 
> > No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> > Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> > Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> > significantly by having them available.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

codesavvy wrote:

> Do you have a metric for measuring the increase in productivity that
> this brings about?  I hope the compiler is consistent from OS to OS
> for Ada.  How often is portability from one system to the next
> required so that all one has to do is recompile and everything will
> work the same needed?  Not very often, almost never IMO.  BTW I like
> the Ada 95 concurrancy model a lot.

How often is portability required, hmmm, let me think...

  The development environment was VAX/VMS with Dec Ada, and on which
preliminary testing was done.  The target platform was a Concurrent
3280(?) with Concurrent Ada.  Additional software on that system was
then targeted for VMS on the Alpha.
  And then there was the port to Rational Apex running on Alphas with
Digital Unix.

  Then on another program: Alsys Ada on HP-UX, ported to GNAT on HP-UX,
with some occasional proof-of-concept stuff done with GNAT on Linux.

  Yet another program: Verdix Ada on Solaris to Rational Apex on
Solaris, and again some testing with GNAT on Linux.

The only significant issue with the latter two programs was dependence
on vendor-supplied packages, which were straightforward to deal with,
and done so quickly.


"Not very often, almost never IMO."

<snort>


Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com


And you are...?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? Of course you ignore the
> other question that pertains to the point I'm trying to make.

Of course I ignored the questions to which I was not responding, I
conscientiously chose to respond only to the..yes..bogus question you
asked:
> 
> > "What class(es) of programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't.
> > 
> > Any computable problem can be solved by an appropriately programmed
> > Turing Machine (TM).  Programming language constructs can be converted
> > into TM instructions (albeit very long and tedious ones). Therefore a
> > C++ to TM compiler, an Ada to TM compiler, or an Assembly language to TM
> > compiler, can solve any computable problem.
> >
> 
> Of course this is true but there are certain problems that are solved
> more "productively" with certain languages as opposed to other
> languages.

Oh, did I misread the question?  I thought it said "What class(es) of
programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't."--which is a bogus
question. I didn't realize that what that meant was "What class(es) of
programming problems does Ada solve more productively than C++".

> > That you asked this question demonstrates that you do not understand
> > computability.  Therefore asking to compare programming languages (of
> > any level) in terms of what can or cannot be programmed using them is
> > (very) silly.  They are TM-equivalent.
> >
> 
> All this to put someone down.

I commend you on your perception.

comp.lang.ada is a technical newsgroup that is patronized by both a
large number of highly experienced, knowledgable software professionals
as well as less experienced individuals that are seeking to learn more. 
A newcomer to the group then announces him or herself by making demands
for metrics and studies and dismisses as unsupported opinion the
millenia of hard-earned experience held by its participants, asks bogus
questions indicating a flawed understanding of computability, and makes
assertions that are glaringly false--such as compiler and platform ports
being very rare.

> Do you have anything besides your opinions?

A rap across the snout with a newspaper is not out of order.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

codesavvy <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote:

> Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? 

Umm, yes they are actually - unless you clearly define what metric
"productivity" is to be measured by. Lines of code per hour? Average
time to release? Total life-cycle cost? Man-hours needed to reach a
certain level of quality? What level? Cost per line of code? What kind
of projects should be measured? What weighting should be given to the
various kinds of projects?

If project A finishes in 2/3 of the time it takes project B to finish
(with identical scores of the results), but the code of A is so shoddy
that any major changes to it means a complete rewrite, whereas with
code B you can just add a couple of modules and write some interface
code - which project was the "most productive"?

Questions about productivity that are as general as yours were, _are_
bogus. (And don't get me started about "synergy").


Leif Roar Moldskred
professional lurker

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Alfred Hilscher]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> 
> Original Message From Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de>
> 
> >What is the superior feature that justifies the creation of C++ at
> >a time where Ada were already long available ?
> 
> Kind of backwards compatibility, I guess. It looks like C.

Oh, I asked for the "superior feature" not for the "greatest mistake"
;-)

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[nicolas]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 884 bytes --]

There are a lot of excellent C libraries (commercial or not) that it would
be stupid to rewrite just for the 'beauty of the language'
If you make an extended use of them, which makes perfect sense, writing all
pragma import and defining appropriate types can be an awfully boring job.
Ada is still not very good for that, and that certainly prevent its use for
some projects.


"Alfred Hilscher" <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de> a �crit dans le message
news: 3B56FBAA.D7C010C9@icn.siemens.de...
>
>
> Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> >
> > Original Message From Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de>
> >
> > >What is the superior feature that justifies the creation of C++ at
> > >a time where Ada were already long available ?
> >
> > Kind of backwards compatibility, I guess. It looks like C.
>
> Oh, I asked for the "superior feature" not for the "greatest mistake"
> ;-)

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de>
>Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>>
>> Original Message From Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de>
>>
>> >What is the superior feature that justifies the creation of C++ at
>> >a time where Ada were already long available ?
>>
>> Kind of backwards compatibility, I guess. It looks like C.
>
>Oh, I asked for the "superior feature" not for the "greatest mistake"
>;-)

I knew that. Anyway, the answer wouldn't be substantially different. :-)


Vinzent.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Leif Roar Moldskred <rmoldskr@online.no> wrote in message news:<5VB57.119$%1.8915@news3.oke.nextra.no>...
> codesavvy <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> > Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? 
> 
> Umm, yes they are actually - unless you clearly define what metric
> "productivity" is to be measured by. Lines of code per hour? Average
> time to release? Total life-cycle cost? Man-hours needed to reach a
> certain level of quality? What level? Cost per line of code? What kind
> of projects should be measured? What weighting should be given to the
> various kinds of projects?
> 

Which ones does management feel are important?

> If project A finishes in 2/3 of the time it takes project B to finish
> (with identical scores of the results), but the code of A is so shoddy
> that any major changes to it means a complete rewrite, whereas with
> code B you can just add a couple of modules and write some interface
> code - which project was the "most productive"?
> 

In several posts I have stated that agreeing on a productivity metric
would be helpful.  So what?

> Questions about productivity that are as general as yours were, _are_
> bogus. (And don't get me started about "synergy").
> 
> 

No they're not especially if you are trying to convince management
that one language is preferable to another.

> Leif Roar Moldskred
> professional lurker

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B56CA73.3D3D09B6@earthlink.net>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> 
> > Do you have a metric for measuring the increase in productivity that
> > this brings about?  I hope the compiler is consistent from OS to OS
> > for Ada.  How often is portability from one system to the next
> > required so that all one has to do is recompile and everything will
> > work the same needed?  Not very often, almost never IMO.  BTW I like
> > the Ada 95 concurrancy model a lot.
> 
> How often is portability required, hmmm, let me think...
> 
>   The development environment was VAX/VMS with Dec Ada, and on which
> preliminary testing was done.  The target platform was a Concurrent
> 3280(?) with Concurrent Ada.  Additional software on that system was
> then targeted for VMS on the Alpha.
>   And then there was the port to Rational Apex running on Alphas with
> Digital Unix.
> 
>   Then on another program: Alsys Ada on HP-UX, ported to GNAT on HP-UX,
> with some occasional proof-of-concept stuff done with GNAT on Linux.
> 
>   Yet another program: Verdix Ada on Solaris to Rational Apex on
> Solaris, and again some testing with GNAT on Linux.
> 
> The only significant issue with the latter two programs was dependence
> on vendor-supplied packages, which were straightforward to deal with,
> and done so quickly.
> 
> 

A miniscule subset of the vast number of software development projects undertaken.  

> "Not very often, almost never IMO."
> 
> <snort>
> 
> 
> Marc A. Criley
> Senior Staff Engineer
> Quadrus Corporation
> www.quadruscorp.com
> 
> 
> And you are...?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <3B59CD72@MailAndNews.com>, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>>- less freely available real-world example code
> 
> I won't need a complete Linux Kernel written in Ada to get familiar with
> the language.

Well, at least some AdaApache ...

>>- very verbose syntax
> 
> That's what I like in Ada. You see the code. You read the code. You see what 
> it does. You understand it.
> 
> I find "A := A mod 100;" much more readable than "A%=100;"
> 
> It says what it does, even if you don't know almost nothing about the
> language. Is that a negative? You can read and _understand_ the code even if
> you don't read the comments if some there are at all[*]. The problem seems
> to be that most programmers are lazy when writing code. OTOH, they then wish
> their colleagues to hell when they have to maintain the code until they 
> realize
> that it was their own code. :)
> 
> [*] I understand that most Ada programmers probably have a better style in
> code documentation anyway. So that's not really a point. :)

I don't care if someone who don't know the language can read it.

`operator=' improves readability if left side is non-trivial.

Example:
A->foo[1].start.x = A->foo[1].start.x % 640;
A->foo[1].start.x %= 640;

>>- no printf or equivalent
> 
> Oohooh. You don't really need a debugger. ;-)

It's not for debugging.
printf-like functions take much, much less code than Ada Text_IO.

> BTW, printf() almost never does what it looks like.
> 
>   printf("The value is %l", some_value);
> 
> Quite correct C, IIRC. Are you sure, if it gives you the correct result?

There's no such formant `%l'.
Compiler (at least gcc) warns when you screw formants.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <3B59EE1C@MailAndNews.com>, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>>solve that C++ can't?
> 
> What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?

Portable programming.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B56D060.EF478F36@earthlink.net>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > 
> > Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? Of course you ignore the
> > other question that pertains to the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Of course I ignored the questions to which I was not responding, I
> conscientiously chose to respond only to the..yes..bogus question you
> asked:

I'm glad you're admitting that you are purposely distorting the intent
of what I wrote.

> > 
> > > "What class(es) of programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't.
> > > 
> > > Any computable problem can be solved by an appropriately programmed
> > > Turing Machine (TM).  Programming language constructs can be converted
> > > into TM instructions (albeit very long and tedious ones). Therefore a
> > > C++ to TM compiler, an Ada to TM compiler, or an Assembly language to TM
> > > compiler, can solve any computable problem.
> > >
> > 
> > Of course this is true but there are certain problems that are solved
> > more "productively" with certain languages as opposed to other
> > languages.
> 
> Oh, did I misread the question?  I thought it said "What class(es) of
> programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't."--which is a bogus
> question. I didn't realize that what that meant was "What class(es) of
> programming problems does Ada solve more productively than C++".
> 

It's not a bogus question when you answer it in the context of my
post.  Many other people understood but you didn't.  That's ok you
don't have to.

> > > That you asked this question demonstrates that you do not understand
> > > computability.  Therefore asking to compare programming languages (of
> > > any level) in terms of what can or cannot be programmed using them is
> > > (very) silly.  They are TM-equivalent.
> > >
> > 
> > All this to put someone down.
> 
> I commend you on your perception.
> 
> comp.lang.ada is a technical newsgroup that is patronized by both a
> large number of highly experienced, knowledgable software professionals
> as well as less experienced individuals that are seeking to learn more. 
> A newcomer to the group then announces him or herself by making demands
> for metrics and studies and dismisses as unsupported opinion the
> millenia of hard-earned experience held by its participants, asks bogus
> questions indicating a flawed understanding of computability, and makes
> assertions that are glaringly false--such as compiler and platform ports
> being very rare.
> 

So you make the final decision on what is appropriate and what is not.
 I don't think that you've been appointed to such a position.  As far
as metrics vs. "hard-earned" experience (a nebulous concept at best) I
believe that one of the problems with the software development
community is that there is too much qualitative analysis and too
little quantitative analysis.  I haven't made any accusations that are
glaringly false nor have I made any bogus assertions.  As far as
compiler platform ports, you offer little evidence to support your
claim and thus it amounts to only an opinion that you have.  It seems
that your main interest is in conducting a flame war.  I'm not
interested though but thanks for playing.
> > Do you have anything besides your opinions?
> 
> A rap across the snout with a newspaper is not out of order.
> 
> Marc A. Criley
> Senior Staff Engineer
> Quadrus Corporation
> www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

codesavvy wrote:
> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107181114410.3159-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>...
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> > > From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
>.......snip........
> > Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat language
> > like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical scope)
> > its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some hacked
> > on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO.
> 
> I agree with you.  I really do like the Ada 95 concurrancy model.
> However, I doubt if the gain in productivity is substantial but I
> could be convinced otherwise.  

What soooo many people keep overlooking in this "productivity issue"
is the _TOTAL_ cost. This has been repeatedly been pointed out by others
here, but many C/C++ zealots seem to fail to completely grasp this issue. 
The amount of time spent in a debugger for Ada is small. The amount of
"weird bug" issues is also extremely small for Ada code in general.

I have spent a major part of my career chasing down other peoples' (and
in some cases my own ;-) memory corruption problems. Sure, it was very
efficient to slap together that C/C++ project. But when you add all that
time to find out where the memory corruption came from, and all those
future bug reports that eventually required investigation, Ada wins 
hands down on a comparison comparison basis. Where do you want to spend
your time? In the debugger, or crafting new code?

The challenge is to get everyone to recognize that you don't measure 
productivity in terms of delivering the final product. Measure it in
terms of delivering the "_perfected_ product". Then consider the cost
of maintaining it after it is delivered/installed.

Another way to look at this issue is that the Ada compiler uses CPU
cycles to spot programming errors for you. Conversely, the C/C++
compiler only looks for gross errors, but otherwise blesses your
code with the ability to "blow away the whole leg", if that is the
instruction you have given. And with automatic type promotion etc.,
C/C++ leaves a few surprises in store for good measure.

Anyway, the whole issue keeps coming down to the point of how you
want to measure "productivity". You need to expand your view on that
IMHO.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Yes, that's him. I've posted links to a couple of his papers on the subject
elsewhere in this thread. (Twice, I think.) Look around. The papers make for
interesting reading.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Larry Hazel" <lhazel@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3B5655F0.3442DBF1@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Is Dr. McCormic the professor with the software controlling model trains?
If
> so, I believe his data showed an enormous productivity increase over C
(C++
> ????).
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

There are no accepted standard measures of productivity in the software
business. If we were talking concrete sidewalks, we could stipulate
dimensions and industry accepted construction materials and measures of
quality, then start laying sidewalk and measuring time. (Or dollars. Same
thing) The problem is that software almost *never* attacks an identical
problem twice and even among similar projects, you almost *never* do it with
an identical set of tools. Hence you can't control all the variables going
in, so you can't attribute any perceived changes as being due to the
language (or some other single variable of study.)

Its a really intractable problem. If we at least had some quantifiable
measure of units of work and some quantifiable measure of quality, we might
stand a chance of counting hours or dollars in. But I defy anybody to
stipulate some units of work and some units of quality that isn't going to
start a firestorm here with arguments all over the place about why the
metrics picked miss some critical factors that change the whole game. I
know - I've been there and done that. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Leif Roar Moldskred" <rmoldskr@online.no> wrote in message
news:5VB57.119$%1.8915@news3.oke.nextra.no...
> codesavvy <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Questions regarding productiviy are bogus?
>
> Umm, yes they are actually - unless you clearly define what metric
> "productivity" is to be measured by. Lines of code per hour? Average
> time to release? Total life-cycle cost? Man-hours needed to reach a
> certain level of quality? What level? Cost per line of code? What kind
> of projects should be measured? What weighting should be given to the
> various kinds of projects?
>
> If project A finishes in 2/3 of the time it takes project B to finish
> (with identical scores of the results), but the code of A is so shoddy
> that any major changes to it means a complete rewrite, whereas with
> code B you can just add a couple of modules and write some interface
> code - which project was the "most productive"?
>
> Questions about productivity that are as general as yours were, _are_
> bogus. (And don't get me started about "synergy").
>
>
> Leif Roar Moldskred
> professional lurker

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

You mean like when I write a program with MSVC++ on a Windows platform and
it just moves seamlessly over to a Sun/Unix platform and compiles without
any changes with the GNU compiler?

(This whole thread has *got* to be a cleverly contrived troll. Can you
believe the explosion of responses? Its almost like insulting someone's
wife, religion or pickup truck... Iresistable bait!)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

"Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl> wrote in message
news:9j74bj$lmp$8@news.tpi.pl...
> In article <3B59EE1C@MailAndNews.com>, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> >>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
> >>solve that C++ can't?
> >
> > What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
>
> Portable programming.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <9j796h$b2t$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic wrote:
>> > What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
>>
>> Portable programming.
> You mean like when I write a program with MSVC++ on a Windows platform and
> it just moves seamlessly over to a Sun/Unix platform and compiles without
> any changes with the GNU compiler?

I don't care about MSVC++.
MS is known for making things unportable, embrace'n'extend
is their `bussiness strategy'.

If it ports among Unices, it's portable.
Assembler certainly doesn't.

> (This whole thread has *got* to be a cleverly contrived troll. Can you
> believe the explosion of responses? Its almost like insulting someone's
> wife, religion or pickup truck... Iresistable bait!)

You know, it's Usenet.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Darren New]

> If it ports among Unices, it's portable.

That's why GNU has such nice tools like autoconf. A program that
analyzes your C, and generates a second program that analyzes your Unix
and patches your C code to work with that particular brand of unix. Uh
huh.

-- 
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
       San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
          Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

That's an interesting definition of "portable". There's ***UNIX***!!! and
there's a handful of insignificant, unimportant, irrelavent "others". Would
you think it at all important that code be able to port to the millions of
"other" machines out there that run non-Unix OS's, like OS/2, MVS, VMS,
MacOS, and (dare I say it?) Windows? I'd bet that there are more non-Unix
platforms (taken as a sum) than there are Unix platforms - or at least it
would be a really big number to be ignoring. It would be like us VMS bigots
saying "Yea, my software runs on *both* kinds of computers - VAXs *and*
Alphas." (Not much of a challenge, is it? :-)

True portability is, of course, extremely hard to achieve. But defining the
problem out of existence doesn't seem fair.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl> wrote in message
news:9j7h4l$lpr$1@news.tpi.pl...
>
> If it ports among Unices, it's portable.
> Assembler certainly doesn't.
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107181114410.3159-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>...
> > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> > > > From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
>  .......snip........
> > > Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat language
> > > like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical scope)
> > > its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some hacked
> > > on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO.
> > 
> > I agree with you.  I really do like the Ada 95 concurrancy model.
> > However, I doubt if the gain in productivity is substantial but I
> > could be convinced otherwise.  
> 
> What soooo many people keep overlooking in this "productivity issue"
> is the _TOTAL_ cost. This has been repeatedly been pointed out by others
> here, but many C/C++ zealots seem to fail to completely grasp this issue. 
> The amount of time spent in a debugger for Ada is small. The amount of
> "weird bug" issues is also extremely small for Ada code in general.
> 
> I have spent a major part of my career chasing down other peoples' (and
> in some cases my own ;-) memory corruption problems. Sure, it was very
> efficient to slap together that C/C++ project. But when you add all that
> time to find out where the memory corruption came from, and all those
> future bug reports that eventually required investigation, Ada wins 
> hands down on a comparison comparison basis. Where do you want to spend
> your time? In the debugger, or crafting new code?
> 

Crafting new code.  Hopefully I won't have to chase down any more
defects that occur during elaboration :-).  Seriously I agree that the
memory corruption problems can be very nasty and very difficult to
fix.

> The challenge is to get everyone to recognize that you don't measure 
> productivity in terms of delivering the final product. Measure it in
> terms of delivering the "_perfected_ product". Then consider the cost
> of maintaining it after it is delivered/installed.
> 

I like your ideas and I agree with the points you are making.  It
seems to me that if indeed Ada 95 offers a better, more productive
programming solution to many problems that are solved using C++ then
it is a travesty that Ada 95 is not more widely used.  I think your
metric for productivity is exactly right.  What has amazed me
regarding this discussion is that so many of the participents seem to
be unconcerned about measuring productivity.  In the final analysis I
believe that in order for Ada 95 to be more widely adopted is a case
that is backed by quantitative data showing the productivity (cost
savings) of using Ada.
 
> Another way to look at this issue is that the Ada compiler uses CPU
> cycles to spot programming errors for you. Conversely, the C/C++
> compiler only looks for gross errors, but otherwise blesses your
> code with the ability to "blow away the whole leg", if that is the
> instruction you have given. And with automatic type promotion etc.,
> C/C++ leaves a few surprises in store for good measure.
> 

Unchecked_Conversion can "blow away the whole leg" as well :-).  I
think that skilled developers are the most important factor in
acheiving "high productivity."  I've seen some very convoluted Ada
code as well where type definitions were very poorly designed.  You're
right about the surprises that C/C++ has.



> Anyway, the whole issue keeps coming down to the point of how you
> want to measure "productivity". You need to expand your view on that
> IMHO.

I basically do agree with your ideas on productivity.  I just would
like to see some quantitative data that support Ada as being more
productive as you have defined productive.  If there have been studies
done or white papers written that make quatitative arguments I would
really like to read them.  You make some very good points but
management for the most part will not listen because they won't take
the risk of using Ada instead of C++ without some hard evidence to
back up the claims regarding the increased productivity by using Ada.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Good except that it doesn't compare C++ and Ada 95.  I think it's fair
to say that this would be a better comparison.  I appreciate the link
you provided though.

hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com (Hambut) wrote in message news:<fb75c450.0107181348.7a39edce@posting.google.com>...
> > 
> > This seems to be suggesting that you feel that there are great
> > productivity gains in using Ada.  Where is the proof that this is
> > indeed the case?  What studies have been done to demonstrate this? 
> > Using Ada is no guarentee that developers won't write crappy,
> > unmanagable code, and unmaintainable code.
> > 
> 
> "Comparing Development Costs of C and Ada" at
> http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp provides a fairly
> good study comparing C and Ada.  Worth a look.
> 
> (Aside: It would be great to be able point this type of query at a
> FAQ.  Perhaps even better if it was posted regularly to this
> newsgroup, people could then find it in a search fairly easily.  Does
> one exist?  Would it be sensible to post it regularly? )

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Fair enough thanks for the input.

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in message news:<9j4u2t$dg9$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is
> > substantially better than C++.
> 
> Well, having used both languages, I'd beg to differ. I think that Ada offers
> a lot more than C++ in the way of safety and correctness. I think its syntax
> and semantics are more regular, clearly defined and less subject to
> erroneous use. I think Ada provides for multi-threaded applications in a
> portable way. I think its better suited to realtime systems and systems
> requiring high integrity and/or long life. I think that makes Ada
> substantially better than C++ - depending on what your definition of
> "Substantially" is.
> 
> There are any number of other advantages Ada has over C++ - if you're
> interested, there are websites that will start turning up resources for you.
> 
> >
> > You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> > excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> > don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> > Ada 95 as opposed to C++.  I have asked if anyone knew of a study
> > where the conclusion was that Ada 95 increased productivity and so far
> > I've only been chastised.  Perhaps if we can agree on what is meant by
> > "significantly more productive" we could carry on a rational
> > discussion.  We would have to agree on the context of productivity and
> > how it is measured.  I offered up a strawman in another post.
> 
> I had a ten year long study of defects and productivity relating to Ada when
> I was in a past life. (I was the stuckee for Metrics.) While the study was
> not comparing Ada to C++, it was comparing it to other languages that we
> used in developing realtime control systems. Over ten years of use with Ada
> showed that we doubled productivity and reduced our error rates by a factor
> of four. Would C++ have done the same? Nobody will ever know in this
> instance because it was not done, but my guess is "No". Why? It doesn't
> provide the kinds of things that Ada provides that we attributed our success
> to. (Whenever you reduce errors, productivity goes up because you aren't
> fixing bugs - you're developing new code. Hence, our error analysis was
> telling us the kinds of things we *weren't* messing up because of Ada's
> safety features and I see no similar safety features in C++ that would have
> caught these things.)
> 
> There may be other studies. I'd start looking at the AdaPower website and
> follow links to other things like the AdaIC, etc. Studies *do* exist
> indicating productivity boosts. But I think more significance should be
> given to error reduction (at least for some domains) because of its
> reduction of liability as well as its contribution to productivity. (Think
> of it this way: Suppose you could develop code equally as fast in Ada and
> C++. Suppose your Ada product has fewer bugs when it makes it to the field.
> The more buggy C++ product damages your company reputation, reduces sales,
> maybe increases warranty costs (think embedded systems) etc. The Ada product
> does the same thing and got to market at the same time, but now doesn't
> dammage your reputation, creates happier customers, etc. Don't you win this
> way?)
> 
> MDC

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Then Ada will be forever relegated to a fulfilling specific niches.  I
believe you'll see more organizations switching from Ada to C++ rather
than the other way around.

Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3B55FFD5.9927BD6@san.rr.com>...
> > All this to put someone down.  I suggest you read my post again and
> > don't quote it out of context.  It's very simple really, all one has
> > to do is indicate some hard evidence that developers are significantly
> > more productive with Ada 95 than say C++.  Do you have anything
> > besides your opinions?
> 
> This is a bogus question. People have provided a list of areas in which
> Ada makes programmers more productive than C++ does. For example, in the
> areas of portable real-time systems, portable multithreaded code,
> portable distributed programming, etc.
> 
> There are other areas where Ada and C++ are approximately equivalent.
> 
> Then you ask for hard evidence where Ada is superior to C++. Well,
> nobody is going to do a study where portable distributed multitasking is
> vital to success and code it in C++ and Ada just to see which works
> better. That's just silly.
> 
> Show me hard evidence that drawing pie charts in Excel is easier than
> drawing pie charts by flogging the bits of the video card in raw C
> without any libraries? What? No evidence out there? Then surely Excel's
> no better than C for doing that.
> 
> If your hypothetical managers aren't doing stuff where Ada is superior
> to C++, then they might not get "sufficient" productivity increase out
> of learning Ada as compared to knowing what they already know. So?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Thanks for the input.  So Capers Jones isn't projecting huge producity
gains by using Ada as opposed to C++.  Interesting.

Ed Falis <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3B5607AC.150BA836@mediaone.net>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> 
> > You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> > excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> > don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> > Ada 95 as opposed to C++.  I have asked if anyone knew of a study
> > where the conclusion was that Ada 95 increased productivity and so far
> > I've only been chastised.
> 
> Not to attribute intentions to you, but generally any demand in newsgroups for studies in this kind of area is a clear
> win for the challenger, because there has been so little done in that regard, due to expense.  As a debating tactic,
> it throws the onus on the person being challenged, as though only that person is making an assertion, which is usually
> not the case.
> 
> Meta-discussion aside, as far as I know, no such studies exist for Ada 95 vs C++.  Are you aware of any regarding C++
> vs "language x"?  For that matter, I can't really think of much along these lines anywhere, excepting the function
> point comparisons (some hypothetical) that Capers Jones had/has somewhere on the web.  Actually, I just looked it up
> for you: http://www.spr.com/library/0langtbl.htm.  Note that the Ada 95 figure is projected, and that C++ and Ada 95
> are listed with close enough numbers to be a wash using that projection.
> 
> There is one fairly thorough study of Ada 83 vs C that was done by Steve Zeigler of Verdix before the company was
> acquired by Rational.  I believe that study is still available on the Rational website.  Try
> http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp
> 
> The problem, of course, is that we don't really know whether it generalizes to a comparison of Ada 95 and C++ - the
> most it can do is lead one to surmise.
> 
> - Ed

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

I can't believe some of the posters in this thread.  Again I said that
Ada 95 has nothing to offer that is substantially better than C++.  If
there was then logically higher productivity would result.  I can't
believe that you have a difficult time grasping this concept.  Some
posters have been kind enough to provide me with anecdotal data and in
one case a link to some data that Capers Jones has which I appreciate.

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<X+JoNS25futh@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> In article <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com>, codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:
> > "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in message news:<9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> >> Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are you
> >> bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all?
> >> 
> > 
> > Here is what I wrote:
> > 
> > I think the answer is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is
> > substantially better than what C++ offers.
> > 
> > I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is
> > substantially better than C++.
> > 
> >> If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits and are
> >> willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better choice
> >> than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for you or
> >> help you learn the language or answer questions about the language. But a
> >> blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you guys
> >> bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get a
> >> serious question answered.
> >> 
> > 
> > You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> > excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> > don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> > Ada 95 as opposed to C++.
> 
> You started with "nothing to offer", but seem to have devolved into
> "no productivity advantage to offer".  The reason I use Ada is not
> productivity, but correctness.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <9j7iug$eb2$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic wrote:
> That's an interesting definition of "portable". There's ***UNIX***!!! and
> there's a handful of insignificant, unimportant, irrelavent "others". Would
> you think it at all important that code be able to port to the millions of
> "other" machines out there that run non-Unix OS's, like OS/2, MVS, VMS,
> MacOS, and (dare I say it?) Windows? I'd bet that there are more non-Unix
> platforms (taken as a sum) than there are Unix platforms - or at least it
> would be a really big number to be ignoring. It would be like us VMS bigots
> saying "Yea, my software runs on *both* kinds of computers - VAXs *and*
> Alphas." (Not much of a challenge, is it? :-)
> 
> True portability is, of course, extremely hard to achieve. But defining the
> problem out of existence doesn't seem fair.

Microsoft breaks compatibility on purpose.
If there were MSAda, you couldn't just recompile MSAda programs on
other Ada compiler. Java wars just confirmed it.

Unices are the only family of OSes that have real standards,
followed by many OSes.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <9j7h4l$lpr$1@news.tpi.pl>, taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) writes:

> If it ports among Unices, it's portable.

And every problem looks like a nail.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Darren New]

> If there were MSAda, you couldn't just recompile MSAda programs on
> other Ada compiler.

Does Ada still have the advantage of being trademarked here, so you
can't call something Ada if it's not compatible?

> Java wars just confirmed it.

Funky, considering many found MS's Java to actually match more standards
than Sun's.

> Unices are the only family of OSes that have real standards,
> followed by many OSes.

And of course, the fact that I can run the same executable on DOS,
Win3.1, Win98, WinNT, and Win2000 means nothing either. Sure.

-- 
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
       San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
          Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <3B57676A.AB47237B@san.rr.com>, Darren New wrote:
>> If there were MSAda, you couldn't just recompile MSAda programs on
>> other Ada compiler.
> 
> Does Ada still have the advantage of being trademarked here, so you
> can't call something Ada if it's not compatible?

So they'll call it A#.
Who cares about trademarks.

>> Unices are the only family of OSes that have real standards,
>> followed by many OSes.
> 
> And of course, the fact that I can run the same executable on DOS,
> Win3.1, Win98, WinNT, and Win2000 means nothing either. Sure.

You can ?
Chances of running DOS executable on Win98
are no bigger than of running Win98 executable on Linux.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Adrian Hoe]

There is no such thing as _best_ language because nothing is perfect
in the reality. Ada is also a programming language designed by apes.
The only difference is that Ada is designed by a group of apes. My
company uses Ada and mandates the use of Ada not because it is simply
labelled "The Best", but according to the real fact that Ada fits into
our business model, our future vision and the confidence Ada has given
us. We had extensive research, testing, evaluation before we jumped
into Ada wagon.

I don't see Ada as "The Best" neither do the rest of my colleagues but
we know that Ada is best for our job. Although my company mandates the
use of Ada, we are still free to use other languages like C if only
one can provide hard evidence that C is better than Ada in that
particular scope of project. Ada is still top in our priority.



Adrian Hoe
Just my 2 cents, not my employer's.



"David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.995490202.14285.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> You might want to take a look at this item:
> http://greenlime.com/Ada-Malaysia/
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
> To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?
> 
> 
> > Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>  news:<3B55C6B0.C2ED36@san.rr.com>...
> > > codesavvy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
> > > > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
> > > > better than what C++ offers.
> > >
> > > Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> > > real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> > > distributed programming?
> >
> > No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> > Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> > Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> > significantly by having them available.
> > _______________________________________________
> > comp.lang.ada mailing list
> > comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> > http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
> >

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Adrian Hoe]

codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) wrote in message news:<5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com>...
> "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in message news:<9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> > Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are you
> > bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all?
> 
> > If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits and are
> > willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better choice
> > than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for you or
> > help you learn the language or answer questions about the language. But a
> > blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you guys
> > bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get a
> > serious question answered.
> > 
> 
> You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> Ada 95 as opposed to C++.  I have asked if anyone knew of a study
> where the conclusion was that Ada 95 increased productivity and so far
> I've only been chastised.  Perhaps if we can agree on what is meant by
> "significantly more productive" we could carry on a rational
> discussion.  We would have to agree on the context of productivity and
> how it is measured.  I offered up a strawman in another post.


Statistics? Please take a look at http://greenlime.com/Ada-Malaysia.

I admit that the statistic published in Ada-Malaysia is not "the best"
statistic but it can give you a rough idea. It is hard to produce an
accurate statistics in the real development simply because the lack of
resources to keep track everything.

In my personal experience, Ada has "significantly" increased my
productivity as well as my colleagues'. This was reflected in my
company over-time claims. This wasn't published in Ada-Malaysia.



Adrian Hoe
Just my 2 cents, not my employer's.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From taw@users.sourceforge.net

>>>- very verbose syntax
>>
>> That's what I like in Ada. You see the code. You read the code. You see 
what
>> it does. You understand it.
[...]
>
>I don't care if someone who don't know the language can read it.

Yes. So me. That's why I always stick to assembly. I don't care about the 
people that have to maintain my code when I'm left. Got my point?

For the rest: I don't want to fight another language war. Had it too often. 
I 
expressed my opinion and some of my experience. You won't change my mind, I 
won't change yours, so there's no point in discussing this matter of taste.


Vinzent.

-- 
Those aren't compiler warnings.
Those are suggestions.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From taw@users.sourceforge.net

>In article <3B59EE1C@MailAndNews.com>, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>>>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
>>>solve that C++ can't?
>>
>> What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
>
>Portable programming.

Not always, believe me. :-)


Vinzent.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>
>In article <3B5FDFA0@MailAndNews.com>, Vinzent Hoefler says...
>>
>>Original Message From Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de>
>>
>>>What is the superior feature that justifies the creation of C++ at
>>>a time where Ada were already long available ?
>>
>>Kind of backwards compatibility, I guess. It looks like C.
>
>That's close. I believe the original reason was an attempt to drag C coders
>kicking and screaming into the modern era.

Yes. I think the same applies to Java. Mmh, and I haven't seen C# yet. But 
it 
"sounds" as it looks like C still.

>It would still have been beter if someone could somehow have made all those C
>coders go "cold turkey" and use something better founded, like Ada.

Yes. Call it lazyness. Let's do tomorrow, what we did today, because we have 
done it yesterday. Something like that.


Vinzent.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Original Message From taw@users.sourceforge.net

>> And of course, the fact that I can run the same executable on DOS,
>> Win3.1, Win98, WinNT, and Win2000 means nothing either. Sure.
>
>You can ?

No, I do.

>Chances of running DOS executable on Win98
>are no bigger than of running Win98 executable on Linux.

I'm developing under Win95/98. Among other things DOS-executables for an 
embedded PC. They run perfectly. They even run under NT/2000. Where they 
don't 
run is Linux' DOS-Emu. Seems, it does not like the port accesses anymore.

So what the hell do you think are you talking about? VMWare? WINE?


Vinzent.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2822 bytes --]

Don't take it as a troll, but the fact that some people here write C/C++
makes me think they are not aware of all of the C++ features which make it
(I think) able to compete with Ada95, at least for most common applications.

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> a �crit dans le message news:
3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
news:<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107181114410.3159-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>...
> > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> > > > From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> >.......snip........
> > > Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat
language
> > > like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical
scope)
> > > its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some
hacked
> > > on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO.
> >
> > I agree with you.  I really do like the Ada 95 concurrancy model.
> > However, I doubt if the gain in productivity is substantial but I
> > could be convinced otherwise.
>
> What soooo many people keep overlooking in this "productivity issue"
> is the _TOTAL_ cost. This has been repeatedly been pointed out by others
> here, but many C/C++ zealots seem to fail to completely grasp this issue.
> The amount of time spent in a debugger for Ada is small. The amount of
> "weird bug" issues is also extremely small for Ada code in general.
>
> I have spent a major part of my career chasing down other peoples' (and
> in some cases my own ;-) memory corruption problems. Sure, it was very
> efficient to slap together that C/C++ project. But when you add all that
> time to find out where the memory corruption came from, and all those
> future bug reports that eventually required investigation, Ada wins
> hands down on a comparison comparison basis. Where do you want to spend
> your time? In the debugger, or crafting new code?
>
> The challenge is to get everyone to recognize that you don't measure
> productivity in terms of delivering the final product. Measure it in
> terms of delivering the "_perfected_ product". Then consider the cost
> of maintaining it after it is delivered/installed.
>
> Another way to look at this issue is that the Ada compiler uses CPU
> cycles to spot programming errors for you. Conversely, the C/C++
> compiler only looks for gross errors, but otherwise blesses your
> code with the ability to "blow away the whole leg", if that is the
> instruction you have given. And with automatic type promotion etc.,
> C/C++ leaves a few surprises in store for good measure.
>
> Anyway, the whole issue keeps coming down to the point of how you
> want to measure "productivity". You need to expand your view on that
> IMHO.
>
> --
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
> http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> I'm no expert, but portability is an important consideration (to me and to
> others).  In some cases with Ada 95 it is possible to eliminate the need
to
> change an application at all, though this is rare (but doable!).  In many
cases,
> there is the possibility to wrap the dependancies in a few wee modules and
> change those.  While you can do this in C(++) it's a lot harder to
maintain and
> even get right.

Leaving concurrency issues, why so? You can encapsulate system-dependant
stuff as much in C++.

> Ada 95 on the other hand gives you the ability to specify the layout of
> structures with greater precision (in general).  This gives it an edge
over C++.

What do you mean?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> But look at what you get from the "informational" interpretation:
>   'First, 'Last, 'Size, 'Range, 'Address, 'Min, 'Max, 'Image, 'Val,
> 'Pos, 'Value, 'Input, 'Output, 'Read, 'Write, 'Pred, 'Succ, 'Valid,
> 'Wide_Image, 'Wide_Value, 'Wide_Width, 'Width.

C++ traits address quite nicely this issue.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[chris.danx]

"Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote in message
news:9j949b$1ujp$1@norfair.nerim.net...
> > I'm no expert, but portability is an important consideration (to me and to
> > others).  In some cases with Ada 95 it is possible to eliminate the need
> to
> > change an application at all, though this is rare (but doable!).  In many
> cases,
> > there is the possibility to wrap the dependancies in a few wee modules and
> > change those.  While you can do this in C(++) it's a lot harder to
> maintain and
> > even get right.
>
> Leaving concurrency issues, why so? You can encapsulate system-dependant
> stuff as much in C++.

True.  But some stuff is more compiler dependant, than Ada is (although there
can be differences between Ada compilers, however it is my understanding that
those are clearly documented).


> > Ada 95 on the other hand gives you the ability to specify the layout of
> > structures with greater precision (in general).  This gives it an edge
> over C++.
>
> What do you mean?

Ada allows you to specify the layout of a structure at a lower level while
maintaining an abstract view.  What I meant was that Ada gives a clearer view of
such a structure which imo gives it an edge over C++.  I've tried making low
level structures with C++, and it's not nice.

Coupled with large variations in compiler behaviour, means C++ isn't in my 5
most frequently used languages.


Chris

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Bertrand Augereau wrote:
>> Ada 95 on the other hand gives you the ability to specify the layout of
>> structures with greater precision (in general).  This gives it an edge
>> over C++.
>What do you mean?

https://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/ada/net/net-packet-ip-v4__ads.htm

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

Chris and Lutz,

Ok, that's what I was thinking about but I had to be sure.
In fact C++ bitfields allow you to pack information exactly (well almost
exactly, you have to take care of the offset with appropriate padding, but
bitfields take care of the 'range') this way in your ADT. This is almost
equivalent.
But I'm not sure of endianness consideration in both cases, especially for
network code.
Can somebody comment?

Anyway I like this syntax. It is elegant.

"Lutz Donnerhacke" <lutz@iks-jena.de> a �crit dans le message news:
slrn9lg7ve.jq.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de...
> * Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> >> Ada 95 on the other hand gives you the ability to specify the layout of
> >> structures with greater precision (in general).  This gives it an edge
> >> over C++.
> >What do you mean?
>
> https://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/ada/net/net-packet-ip-v4__ads.htm

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Bertrand Augereau wrote:
>"Lutz Donnerhacke" <lutz@iks-jena.de> a �crit dans le message news:
>> https://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/ada/net/net-packet-ip-v4__ads.htm
>
>Ok, that's what I was thinking about but I had to be sure.
>In fact C++ bitfields allow you to pack information exactly (well almost
>exactly, you have to take care of the offset with appropriate padding, but
>bitfields take care of the 'range') this way in your ADT. This is almost
>equivalent.

Please specify the C++ Code for offset 6.
      [...]
      dont_fragment    at  6 range 6 .. 6;
      more_fragments   at  6 range 5 .. 5;
      offset1          at  6 range 0 .. 4;
      [...]

Ada95 still have problems, there is no portable way to specify the layout of
the whole 12bit offset.

>But I'm not sure of endianness consideration in both cases, especially for
>network code.

https://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/ada/net/net-portability__adb.htm

It's horrible ugly, but compile time evaluable and the generated code is
incredibly fine. Ever seen a Compiler generating an endian prefix on alpha?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> > Leaving concurrency issues, why so? You can encapsulate system-dependant
> > stuff as much in C++.
>
> True.  But some stuff is more compiler dependant, than Ada is (although
there
> can be differences between Ada compilers, however it is my understanding
that
> those are clearly documented).

That's unfortunately (for us C++ programmers!) true (especially for
primitive types size), but nowadays, for instance, you can trust some quite
large fundations on any platform : C runtime and STL.
I think if I had to choose a language for this cross-platform consideration,
I would take Java because you get much more things in the API.
Basically for me, considering APIs, Java (+Network) > Ada(+Concurrency) >
C++
So it's just a question of where to draw a line, isn't it?

By the way I do embedded programming (gaming console), and C and C++ are the
only choices, so decision is easy to take! Moreover, C++ is quite classical
so you find developers easily (most of them just code in C with the keyword
"class" thinking that they know C++ btw).
I think if Ada software is better/cheaper to maintain, it is because more
qualified people produce it and that's it.
Those people could make good C++ software too.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

To state that C++ is competitive with Ada is almost stating the obvious. C++
has competed with other languages and has a very large share of the market.
Ada is nowhere near the market share had by C++.

If you mean "competitive" in the sense of productive software development,
then in some cases C++ is going to be superior because it provides most of
the basic capabilities Ada has in some form, but also has some very serious
class libraries (albeit, non-standard and dependent on platform & vendor)
available to leverage development. In some apps, Ada will still be superior,
because the class libraries may not count for much & the app may demand
features that Ada does better.

If the intention is on a purely technical level (best possible
syntax/semantics, built-in language features, etc.) I would say that C++ has
a lot to offer, but that I think Ada still would end up superior. Here in
C.L.A., we have a tendency to think about superiority and competitiveness
strictly in terms of technical language features rather than environments,
specific apps, marketability, etc.

So I guess it depends on what race course you want to run on. Once you pick
that, it may be that C++ is "competitive" there.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote in message
news:9j93u6$1ua8$1@norfair.nerim.net...
> Don't take it as a troll, but the fact that some people here write C/C++
> makes me think they are not aware of all of the C++ features which make it
> (I think) able to compete with Ada95, at least for most common
applications.
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> 
   --> (Reinserted from my original response...)
> > Consider this:
> > 
> >    type Altitude is range 0 .. 50_000;
> >    Above_Ground : Altitude;
> > 
> > The "defensive" interpretation says that you can now be assured an
> > attempt to assign a negative altitude or go into military airspace will
> > be immediately caught.
   <--
> > 
> > But look at what you get from the "informational" interpretation:
> >   'First, 'Last, 'Size, 'Range, 'Address, 'Min, 'Max, 'Image, 'Val,
> > 'Pos, 'Value, 'Input, 'Output, 'Read, 'Write, 'Pred, 'Succ, 'Valid,
> > 'Wide_Image, 'Wide_Value, 'Wide_Width, 'Width.
> 
> C++ traits address quite nicely this issue.

This is odd, having spent the last couple years immersed in C++ projects
with very experienced C++ programmers (including co-authoring a C++
Programming Practices standard), I've never encountered anyone
suggesting their use, much less employing them.

Doing a Google search on "C++ traits" brought up only a handful of
relevant entries, the contents of which described it more as a
"technique" than a language feature--and a technique available only to
templates at that.  (Though I may be misinformed regarding this aspect,
I'm going by how traits were presented in the various references.)

The only reference to something like traits in the MSVC++ Help Index was
a "traits_type" data member. Digging further, that did lead to the
discovery of MSVC++ supporting the traits technique, though as noted
above, only for specific template classes.

And not a single one of my C++ books, including "The ANSI/ISO C++
Professional Programmer's Handbook", published in 1999, has an index
entry for "traits".


While C++ type traits may be a technique to extract type information,
its applicability appears limited, and is certainly not available to
range constrained scalar type definitions.  The use of the technique for
other than predefined classes (such as basic_string instantiated with
char) appears to require the _developer_ implement the functionality of
each trait.

Hardly comparable to Ada automatically providing all this information
extraction functionality as part of its standard definition.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Dmitry Kazakov]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:20:48 +0200, "Bertrand Augereau"
<baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote:

>Don't take it as a troll, but the fact that some people here write C/C++
>makes me think they are not aware of all of the C++ features which make it
>(I think) able to compete with Ada95, at least for most common applications.

We are developing much more in C++ than in Ada 95, and things that
require almost all bells and whistles of C++. So I think I am able to
compare. 

From my point of view Ada is superior in almost all features you might
choose to compare. Of course many things cannot be compared, because
C++ simply does not have them. People here could easily provide you
with a large list. I do not think it would convince you because
"nobody need that crap in common applications". 

Nevertheless, the most important thing to me is the careful Ada
language design, that C++ lacks. I might disagree with this or that
Ada design solution, but I always can *rely* upon it. With C++ I must
always think which nasty (and usually very well hidden) pitfall brings
the nice solution that comes first in mind.

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

>
> Please specify the C++ Code for offset 6.
>       [...]
>       dont_fragment    at  6 range 6 .. 6;
>       more_fragments   at  6 range 5 .. 5;
>       offset1          at  6 range 0 .. 4;
>       [...]
>

If I don't get something wrong (I'm at work so I don't have much time... or
do I ;-) ):
I'm not that sure of the exact semantics of 'at position range a..b'

struct Head
{
    ...
    unsigned int offset1:5;
    unsigned int more_fragments :1;
    unsigned int dont_fragment : 1;
    unsigned int pad:1;
    ..
}

But you have to ensure the previous elements of the structure make the
padding right.
that's what I said there "(well almost exactly, you have to take care of the
offset with appropriate padding, but bitfields take care of the 'range')"

Ok this is a lame disclaimer ;-)

> Ada95 still have problems, there is no portable way to specify the layout
of
> the whole 12bit offset.
>
> >But I'm not sure of endianness consideration in both cases, especially
for
> >network code.
>
> https://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/ada/net/net-portability__adb.htm
>
> It's horrible ugly, but compile time evaluable and the generated code is
> incredibly fine. Ever seen a Compiler generating an endian prefix on
alpha?

Sometimes you have to live with ugliness...

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>`operator=' improves readability if left side is non-trivial.
>
>Example:
>A->foo[1].start.x = A->foo[1].start.x % 640;
>A->foo[1].start.x %= 640;

declare
  w : myType renames A.foo(1).start.x;
begin
  w := w mod 640;
end;

>>>- no printf or equivalent
>> 
>> Oohooh. You don't really need a debugger. ;-)
>
>It's not for debugging.
>printf-like functions take much, much less code than Ada Text_IO.

I'm not sure:
ftp://ftp.iks-jena.de/pub/mitarb/lutz/ada/formatted_print/

>Compiler (at least gcc) warns when you screw formants.

printf is an runtime interpreter. That's ugly.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

That's right it's not as much automated as in Ada (anyway there's no value
range in C++), it is merely a "technique", but you can do really nice stuff
with this.
For instance:
Can you implement your own 'attributes in Ada to be evaluated at  compile
time? I guess not, but I haven't been doing Ada for some time. And that's
what traits address in C++.
And traits is just the upper part of the template metaprogramming in C++
iceberg (which is not melting).
If you want something really interesting to read, go for "Modern C++ Design:
Generic Programming and Design Patterns Applied" by Andrei Alexandrescu...
And look for Loki(related to the book) and boost libraries on the web.
It is about Metaprogramming and it is worth reading even if you don't do C++
intensively (though a bit hard if you're not used to templates), because I
guess this will become more and more important,  though most compilers are
not good enough for allowing everything (partial specialization) (but it's
getting better this days)...
I know that you will say that Ada works NOW, but I have to ignore you and
watch somewhere else ;-)
If you only use some subset of C++ features, everybody support these. Maybe
that's why your "C++ experts" buddies don't use that, or because it wasn't
popular (it's still not in fact) at this time.

By the way MSVC++ is not much compliant, though I have to use it everyday
because with Intel c++ compiler plugin it's the best code generator for x86
architectures...

> This is odd, having spent the last couple years immersed in C++ projects
> with very experienced C++ programmers (including co-authoring a C++
> Programming Practices standard), I've never encountered anyone
> suggesting their use, much less employing them.
>
> Doing a Google search on "C++ traits" brought up only a handful of
> relevant entries, the contents of which described it more as a
> "technique" than a language feature--and a technique available only to
> templates at that.  (Though I may be misinformed regarding this aspect,
> I'm going by how traits were presented in the various references.)
>
> The only reference to something like traits in the MSVC++ Help Index was
> a "traits_type" data member. Digging further, that did lead to the
> discovery of MSVC++ supporting the traits technique, though as noted
> above, only for specific template classes.
>
> And not a single one of my C++ books, including "The ANSI/ISO C++
> Professional Programmer's Handbook", published in 1999, has an index
> entry for "traits".
>
>
> While C++ type traits may be a technique to extract type information,
> its applicability appears limited, and is certainly not available to
> range constrained scalar type definitions.  The use of the technique for
> other than predefined classes (such as basic_string instantiated with
> char) appears to require the _developer_ implement the functionality of
> each trait.
>
> Hardly comparable to Ada automatically providing all this information
> extraction functionality as part of its standard definition.
>
> Marc A. Criley
> Senior Staff Engineer
> Quadrus Corporation
> www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Bertrand Augereau wrote:
>> Please specify the C++ Code for offset 6.
>>       [...]
>>       dont_fragment    at  6 range 6 .. 6;
>>       more_fragments   at  6 range 5 .. 5;
>>       offset1          at  6 range 0 .. 4;
>>       [...]
>
>struct Head
>{
>    ...
>    unsigned int offset1:5;
>    unsigned int more_fragments :1;
>    unsigned int dont_fragment : 1;
>    unsigned int pad:1;
>    ..
>}

What does "Head.more_fragments = (total - send)/packet_size;" mean?

>But you have to ensure the previous elements of the structure make the
>padding right.

No problem. I can live with that (unfortunely, I can't remember the C++
language definition specifying that all components must be not aligned but
packed.)

>> https://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/ada/net/net-portability__adb.htm
>>
>> It's horrible ugly, but compile time evaluable and the generated code
>> is incredibly fine. Ever seen a Compiler generating an endian prefix on
>> alpha?
>
>Sometimes you have to live with ugliness...

No. I'm designing a language to specify such format.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Some attributes in Ada can be overriden - where it makes sense. However, one
of the things I know of no way of doing in C++ are things where I want the
compiler to track ranges, etc., of subtypes and use the attributes to make
sure everything works based on what the compiler knows. What you are
referring to as "traits" sounds like nothing more than implementing
functions (or macros?) to return characteristics of complex types - not
getting the compiler to figure things out for you and track all that info so
you don't have to.

If you look at the really rich collection of attributes that Ada provides
for objects, types, subprograms, tasks, etc., I think you will see that
these can be extremely useful in all sorts of ways. They can aid in
portability, or isolate the impact of changes or provide all sorts of useful
information about the data and code you are using that helps develop more
flexible & adaptable applications.

Check out Annex K of the ARM (on-line available at
http://www.adapower.org/ - look under "Reference" and "On-line version of
the Ada 95 Reference Manual at AdaPower.com ") You will find a wealth of
things available to you that are not paralleled in C++ or any number of
other languages. I particularly like them for mathematical computations!

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote in message
news:9j9cip$238u$1@norfair.nerim.net...
> That's right it's not as much automated as in Ada (anyway there's no value
> range in C++), it is merely a "technique", but you can do really nice
stuff
> with this.
> For instance:
> Can you implement your own 'attributes in Ada to be evaluated at  compile
> time? I guess not, but I haven't been doing Ada for some time. And that's
> what traits address in C++.
> And traits is just the upper part of the template metaprogramming in C++
> iceberg (which is not melting).
> If you want something really interesting to read, go for "Modern C++
Design:
> Generic Programming and Design Patterns Applied" by Andrei Alexandrescu...
> And look for Loki(related to the book) and boost libraries on the web.
> It is about Metaprogramming and it is worth reading even if you don't do
C++
> intensively (though a bit hard if you're not used to templates), because I
> guess this will become more and more important,  though most compilers are
> not good enough for allowing everything (partial specialization) (but it's
> getting better this days)...
> I know that you will say that Ada works NOW, but I have to ignore you and
> watch somewhere else ;-)
> If you only use some subset of C++ features, everybody support these.
Maybe
> that's why your "C++ experts" buddies don't use that, or because it wasn't
> popular (it's still not in fact) at this time.
>
> By the way MSVC++ is not much compliant, though I have to use it everyday
> because with Intel c++ compiler plugin it's the best code generator for
x86
> architectures...

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> >
> >struct Head
> >{
> >    ...
> >    unsigned int offset1:5;
> >    unsigned int more_fragments :1;
> >    unsigned int dont_fragment : 1;
> >    unsigned int pad:1;
> >    ..
> >}
>
> What does "Head.more_fragments = (total - send)/packet_size;" mean?

It is an unsigned int affectation which is undefined if ((total -
send)/packet_size) is bigger than 1 bit, no?

>
> >But you have to ensure the previous elements of the structure make the
> >padding right.
>
> No problem. I can live with that (unfortunely, I can't remember the C++
> language definition specifying that all components must be not aligned but
> packed.)

I guess bitfields force packing, but I'm not sure. And my Stroustrup's not
there.
Else you got me and we have to rely on copmpiler specific stuff. I'll check.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Bertrand Augereau wrote:
>> >struct Head
>> >{
>> >    ...
>> >    unsigned int offset1:5;
>> >    unsigned int more_fragments :1;
>> >    unsigned int dont_fragment : 1;
>> >    unsigned int pad:1;
>> >    ..
>> >}
>>
>> What does "Head.more_fragments = (total - send)/packet_size;" mean?
>
>It is an unsigned int affectation which is undefined if ((total -
>send)/packet_size) is bigger than 1 bit, no?

What do you expect by reading the source code line? What does really happen?
Why can this remain in production software for years?

>> >But you have to ensure the previous elements of the structure make the
>> >padding right.
>>
>> No problem. I can live with that (unfortunely, I can't remember the C++
>> language definition specifying that all components must be not aligned but
>> packed.)
>
>I guess bitfields force packing, but I'm not sure. And my Stroustrup's not
>there. Else you got me and we have to rely on copmpiler specific stuff.
>I'll check.

'guess'. No more questions.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3B57676A.AB47237B@san.rr.com>, Darren New says...
>
>And of course, the fact that I can run the same executable on DOS,
>Win3.1, Win98, WinNT, and Win2000 means nothing either. Sure.

Actually, that's rarely the case. I think Win3.1 has a different exe format than
the rest. Even the Win32 OS'es have quite a few library differences between
them. If there are examples of this, they must be pretty simple programs.
Certianly none of the 50 or so PC games I own have this capability. I do have a
few that would work (on some platforms better than others) if you threw out
Win3.1 though.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> If you look at the really rich collection of attributes that Ada provides
> for objects, types, subprograms, tasks, etc., I think you will see that
> these can be extremely useful in all sorts of ways. They can aid in
> portability, or isolate the impact of changes or provide all sorts of
useful
> information about the data and code you are using that helps develop more
> flexible & adaptable applications.

They do, I don't discuss this. They are very nice.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <slrn9lgceb.jq.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> * Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>>`operator=' improves readability if left side is non-trivial.
>>
>>Example:
>>A->foo[1].start.x = A->foo[1].start.x % 640;
>>A->foo[1].start.x %= 640;
> 
> declare
>   w : myType renames A.foo(1).start.x;
> begin
>   w := w mod 640;
> end;

That's evil and takes 5 lines instead of just 1.

>>Compiler (at least gcc) warns when you screw formants.
> 
> printf is an runtime interpreter. That's ugly.

Almost all printfs are compile-time printfs.
Complire could as well support printf or equivalent.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> What do you expect by reading the source code line? What does really
happen?
> Why can this remain in production software for years?

The semantics is that it is an unsigned like any other unsigned, except its
capacity is different.
And I would do capacity checking before this affectation, anyway.

> 'guess'. No more questions.

That's a bit of a nasty reaction. You don't have to be this arrogant.
I myself don't use this type of code often, and I don't have any standard
right there.

The closest thing to a ref manual I got here, MSDN, says that for aligning
on a int boundary, you have to specify a bitfield size of zero, so it must
imply that other bitfields are packed, which sounds logical.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David C. Hoos]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?


> In article <slrn9lgceb.jq.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>, Lutz Donnerhacke
wrote:
<snip>
> >>Compiler (at least gcc) warns when you screw formants.
> >
> > printf is an runtime interpreter. That's ugly.
>
> Almost all printfs are compile-time printfs.
I beg to differ.  All printfs must be run-time interpreters, otherwise they
couldn't support variable format strings -- i.e., the string that defines
the
way the output elements are to be formatted.

The other thing about prontf that is different from Ada is the fact that it
(as well as many other C functions) takes a variable number of arguments.

> Complire could as well support printf or equivalent.
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> 
> That's right it's not as much automated as in Ada (anyway there's no value
> range in C++), it is merely a "technique", but you can do really nice stuff
> with this.

Well sure!  But when comparing programming language capabilities you
don't normally compare a language's intrinsic features with something
the developer would have to write themself.

> If you only use some subset of C++ features, everybody support these. Maybe
> that's why your "C++ experts" buddies don't use that, or because it wasn't
> popular (it's still not in fact) at this time.

You needn't enclose "C++ experts" in quotes.  These individuals created
some of the most sophisticated (in the good sense), powerful, and
elegant software I have seen in _any_ programming language.  They knew
C++ through and through.

"Traits" is just not a well-known technique for C++, while attributes
are widely used in Ada code.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> Don't take it as a troll, but the fact that some people here write C/C++
> makes me think they are not aware of all of the C++ features which make it
> (I think) able to compete with Ada95, at least for most common applications.

Troll?

The best features of C++ still leave numerous faults in the final product:

  - No overflow checks
  - In some cases, no divide by zero checks (this feature may need to be
    enabled on your platform).
  - No array bounds checking, unless you use classes to do this for you
    (a very costly approach for small arrays)
  - Casting
  - Unnecessary dynamic errors (things that could be statically check
    at compile time instead).
  - Everything is externally available (or at least, within the namespace),
    which leads to unwanted module interactions/conflicts.
  - implied conversions
  - weak enumeration types

All this is just the tip of the iceberg. For a fuller description of C++'s
problems (apart from the Ada comparison), see "Handbook of Programming
Languages", Volume 1., MacMillan Technical Publishing (I don't have the book
here, so I don't have ISBN). There's quite a description of C++'s problems
there, which don't address all of the inherited problems of C. Put the two
together, and you have one whopping list of problems.

In the final analysis, we're not really talking about a specific 
feature comparison here anyway. We're really just 
comparing how the languages and the compilers of same such compare.
How they permit the user to develop quality software, and of course within
reasonable time frames. 

Sure, there are "techniques" that can be used to _reduce_ exposure, or
enhance type safety etc. But this is generally lame by comparison to
what the Ada language enforces. Another way to say this might be to
suggest that Ada enforces the "techniques".

So if we're still talking about "productivity", it still
must be compared over the whole life cycle of the code. Not just
"delivery" of the code. There are no sufficient "productivity gains" 
in the C++ language that will bail itself out of the cost of 
debugging and troubleshooting the product later.

Regarding "common applications" :
=================================

Unless you're talking about quick 'n dirty, throw away code,
I don't think you can dispense with the need for reliable code. 
Especially if I am paying you to deliver me as much.

Look at the Windows code crashes/seizures etc.,
it's surprises, or when it does not deliver on functionality 
that it is supposed to.

Netscape/Explorer are two other big applications that
could greatly benefit from being developed in Ada95. Ada will not
make all of these problems go away, but the original point was that
CPU cycles will be expended by the Ada compiler to help the developers 
of these projects, to identify problems before they occur. BEFORE,
testing begins.

Consider which approach you would use below?

    The C/C++/Java approach :

    1. Build hang glider
    2. Flight test it
    3. If you live through the test, fix test identified bugs.
    4. Repeat 2 and 3 as required

Or..

    The Ada approach :

    1. Build hang glider
    2. Fix identified bugs
    3. Repeat 2 as required
    4. Flight test

The 2nd approach is much safer, and is over the whole life cycle
of the project, is much cheaper. If we can't agree on that,
then we won't agree on much else ;-)

Anyway, WRT the subject line "Ada the Best Language?", I don't think
that you can mandate a "best" unless you identify the application, and
the user. This is like saying "what is the best car to buy?" However, 
I do believe that Ada is a better choice for _many_ software 
applications today. I think it is starting to get more recognition
in light of this, also.

wwg.

> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> a �crit dans le message news:
> 3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com...
> > codesavvy wrote:
> > > Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107181114410.3159-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>...
> > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> > > > > From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> > >.......snip........
> > > > Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat
> language
> > > > like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical
> scope)
> > > > its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some
> hacked
> > > > on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO.
> > >
> > > I agree with you.  I really do like the Ada 95 concurrancy model.
> > > However, I doubt if the gain in productivity is substantial but I
> > > could be convinced otherwise.
> >
> > What soooo many people keep overlooking in this "productivity issue"
> > is the _TOTAL_ cost. This has been repeatedly been pointed out by others
> > here, but many C/C++ zealots seem to fail to completely grasp this issue.
> > The amount of time spent in a debugger for Ada is small. The amount of
> > "weird bug" issues is also extremely small for Ada code in general.
> >
> > I have spent a major part of my career chasing down other peoples' (and
> > in some cases my own ;-) memory corruption problems. Sure, it was very
> > efficient to slap together that C/C++ project. But when you add all that
> > time to find out where the memory corruption came from, and all those
> > future bug reports that eventually required investigation, Ada wins
> > hands down on a comparison comparison basis. Where do you want to spend
> > your time? In the debugger, or crafting new code?
> >
> > The challenge is to get everyone to recognize that you don't measure
> > productivity in terms of delivering the final product. Measure it in
> > terms of delivering the "_perfected_ product". Then consider the cost
> > of maintaining it after it is delivered/installed.
> >
> > Another way to look at this issue is that the Ada compiler uses CPU
> > cycles to spot programming errors for you. Conversely, the C/C++
> > compiler only looks for gross errors, but otherwise blesses your
> > code with the ability to "blow away the whole leg", if that is the
> > instruction you have given. And with automatic type promotion etc.,
> > C/C++ leaves a few surprises in store for good measure.
> >
> > Anyway, the whole issue keeps coming down to the point of how you
> > want to measure "productivity". You need to expand your view on that
> > IMHO.
> >
> > --
> > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
> > http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Original Message From taw@users.sourceforge.net
> 
> >In article <3B59EE1C@MailAndNews.com>, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> >>>What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
> >>>solve that C++ can't?
> >>
> >> What programming problems does C++ solve that Assembly language can't?
> >
> >Portable programming.
> 
> Not always, believe me. :-)
> 
> Vinzent.

OS/2 died a grizzly death because it was too costly to port/extend it to 
newer platforms (I understand it was largely assembler code). You never 
saw  OS/2 on the Alpha, but you did see windows there. Hmmm... I wonder 
what the difference was? ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> > > Leaving concurrency issues, why so? You can encapsulate system-dependant
> > > stuff as much in C++.
> >
> > True.  But some stuff is more compiler dependant, than Ada is (although
> there
> > can be differences between Ada compilers, however it is my understanding
> that
> > those are clearly documented).
> 
> That's unfortunately (for us C++ programmers!) true (especially for
> primitive types size), but nowadays, for instance, you can trust some quite
> large fundations on any platform : C runtime and STL.
> I think if I had to choose a language for this cross-platform consideration,
> I would take Java because you get much more things in the API.
> Basically for me, considering APIs, Java (+Network) > Ada(+Concurrency) >
> C++
> So it's just a question of where to draw a line, isn't it?

Hee, hee, but what are you going to do when you want to do a select(2) call
on a dozen file descriptors? Java doesn't give you a clean way to do this,
short of creating a dozen threads to each block on one descriptor. Or..
you can use non-blocking (gak) calls. Java still falls short in a number 
of places. Ada of course, would not prevent you from calling select(2) or
poll(2). To do it in Java, requires the use of native methods, which would
be oh so ugly (creation of a shared library etc. etc.)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Some attributes in Ada can be overriden - where it makes sense. However, one
> of the things I know of no way of doing in C++ are things where I want the
> compiler to track ranges, etc., of subtypes and use the attributes to make
> sure everything works based on what the compiler knows. What you are
> referring to as "traits" sounds like nothing more than implementing
> functions (or macros?) to return characteristics of complex types - not
> getting the compiler to figure things out for you and track all that info so
> you don't have to.
> 
> If you look at the really rich collection of attributes that Ada provides
> for objects, types, subprograms, tasks, etc., I think you will see that
> these can be extremely useful in all sorts of ways. They can aid in
> portability, or isolate the impact of changes or provide all sorts of useful
> information about the data and code you are using that helps develop more
> flexible & adaptable applications.

In further support of Ada..

This is where a C/C++ programmer might use a macro (or clumsy sizeof
expression) to describe the extent of an array bound. The Ada compiler OTOH
readily provides the programmer with the array'Length attribute. There is
never a disagreement with the array length and the attribute, as there can
be with the C macro when it does not apply to the array (or you have
redefined the macro). Additionally, sizeof can be misleading in certain
uses, because it's returned size may be the physical size, rather than
the actual size etc.

Furthermore, Ada does not force arrays to start at zero. This is fully
supported with array'First and array'Last (with array'Length providing
the difference). C/C++ cannot come close in comparison at these points.
This allows you as the programmer to not be force to think in implementation
terms -- you subscript the array as appropriate to your application.

> Check out Annex K of the ARM (on-line available at
> http://www.adapower.org/ - look under "Reference" and "On-line version of
> the Ada 95 Reference Manual at AdaPower.com ") You will find a wealth of
> things available to you that are not paralleled in C++ or any number of
> other languages. I particularly like them for mathematical computations!
> 
> MDC
> --
> Marin David Condic
> Senior Software Engineer
> Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
> Enabling the digital revolution
> e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
> Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Darren New]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
> In article <3B57676A.AB47237B@san.rr.com>, Darren New says...
> >
> >And of course, the fact that I can run the same executable on DOS,
> >Win3.1, Win98, WinNT, and Win2000 means nothing either. Sure.
> 
> Actually, that's rarely the case. I think Win3.1 has a different exe format than
> the rest. Even the Win32 OS'es have quite a few library differences between
> them. If there are examples of this, they must be pretty simple programs.

They have simple requirements. For example, I've been using the same
jpeg compression routines since before Win3.1 was available. (Before it
was available to me, at least. It might have been out there somewhere.)
Read a file, write a file kind of stuff. Anything that does stdio.h type
stuff works fine.

> Certianly none of the 50 or so PC games I own have this capability.

Games kind of tend to push the edge on what's legal programming and
such, and they tend not to worry about whether they'll still run without
changes in 5 years. I'd bet, however, that a PC game for Win3.1 is more
likely to run under Win98 without recompiling than a UNIX game for Linux
is likely to run under HP/UX or Solaris without recompiling. :-)

-- 
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
       San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
          Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Well, to be comparing apples to apples - can you take an EXE compiled on
Sun/Unix and run it on PC/Linux and have it work? That appears to be the
test standard for portability between the various versions of Windows,
right?

Or in the other direction, how portable is an MS/DOS program written in
(pick your language) if you compile it under WindowsNT with the appropriate
compiler?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:YNY57.984$ar1.4346@www.newsranger.com...
>
> Actually, that's rarely the case. I think Win3.1 has a different exe
format than
> the rest. Even the Win32 OS'es have quite a few library differences
between
> them. If there are examples of this, they must be pretty simple programs.
> Certianly none of the 50 or so PC games I own have this capability. I do
have a
> few that would work (on some platforms better than others) if you threw
out
> Win3.1 though.
>
> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> The best features of C++ still leave numerous faults in the final product:

>
>   - No overflow checks
>   - In some cases, no divide by zero checks (this feature may need to be
>     enabled on your platform).

"You don't have to pay for what you don't use" is the principle.

>   - No array bounds checking, unless you use classes to do this for you
>     (a very costly approach for small arrays)
Plain wrong. Just look at STL's vector. You can use it with or without
bounds checking depending your needs. And it's very efficient.

>   - Casting
Type conversions are very strict in c++ for non primitive types. And you can
choose to forbid implicit conversions between ADT (this is the default)

>   - Unnecessary dynamic errors (things that could be statically check
>     at compile time instead).

Such as?

>   - Everything is externally available (or at least, within the
namespace),
>     which leads to unwanted module interactions/conflicts.

It is true C++ lacks packages...

>   - implied conversions
I answered to this.

>   - weak enumeration types
Why? Enum are a different type in the system.

>
> All this is just the tip of the iceberg. For a fuller description of C++'s
> problems (apart from the Ada comparison), see "Handbook of Programming
> Languages", Volume 1., MacMillan Technical Publishing (I don't have the
book
> here, so I don't have ISBN). There's quite a description of C++'s problems
> there, which don't address all of the inherited problems of C. Put the two
> together, and you have one whopping list of problems.
>
> In the final analysis, we're not really talking about a specific
> feature comparison here anyway. We're really just
> comparing how the languages and the compilers of same such compare.
> How they permit the user to develop quality software, and of course within
> reasonable time frames.
>
> Sure, there are "techniques" that can be used to _reduce_ exposure, or
> enhance type safety etc. But this is generally lame by comparison to
> what the Ada language enforces. Another way to say this might be to
> suggest that Ada enforces the "techniques".
>
> So if we're still talking about "productivity", it still
> must be compared over the whole life cycle of the code. Not just
> "delivery" of the code. There are no sufficient "productivity gains"
> in the C++ language that will bail itself out of the cost of
> debugging and troubleshooting the product later.
>
> Regarding "common applications" :
> =================================
>
> Unless you're talking about quick 'n dirty, throw away code,
> I don't think you can dispense with the need for reliable code.
> Especially if I am paying you to deliver me as much.
>
> Look at the Windows code crashes/seizures etc.,
> it's surprises, or when it does not deliver on functionality
> that it is supposed to.
>
> Netscape/Explorer are two other big applications that
> could greatly benefit from being developed in Ada95. Ada will not
> make all of these problems go away, but the original point was that
> CPU cycles will be expended by the Ada compiler to help the developers
> of these projects, to identify problems before they occur. BEFORE,
> testing begins.
>
> Consider which approach you would use below?
>
>     The C/C++/Java approach :
>
>     1. Build hang glider
>     2. Flight test it
>     3. If you live through the test, fix test identified bugs.
>     4. Repeat 2 and 3 as required
>
> Or..
>
>     The Ada approach :
>
>     1. Build hang glider
>     2. Fix identified bugs
>     3. Repeat 2 as required
>     4. Flight test

I guess you will agree the development process is not inherent to the
language.
You can build clean software in C++ or Java using the good methods, as well
as in Ada.

>
> The 2nd approach is much safer, and is over the whole life cycle
> of the project, is much cheaper. If we can't agree on that,
> then we won't agree on much else ;-)

In the field I work (videogames), this is not the case, but I have planned
in more critical domains (though not that critical), and I understand those
constraints.
I do think the main difference is that people who program in Ada are less
numerous and therefore more competent than the vast majority of C++
developers.

>
> Anyway, WRT the subject line "Ada the Best Language?", I don't think
> that you can mandate a "best" unless you identify the application, and
> the user. This is like saying "what is the best car to buy?" However,
> I do believe that Ada is a better choice for _many_ software
> applications today. I think it is starting to get more recognition
> in light of this, also.
>
> wwg.

The subject line was not mine, I was just making the point that many people
criticizing C++ don't know much of it.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> > That's right it's not as much automated as in Ada (anyway there's no
value
> > range in C++), it is merely a "technique", but you can do really nice
stuff
> > with this.
>
> Well sure!  But when comparing programming language capabilities you
> don't normally compare a language's intrinsic features with something
> the developer would have to write themself.

Yes but available idioms are dependant of the features of the language and
they are just as important, I feel.

>
> > If you only use some subset of C++ features, everybody support these.
Maybe
> > that's why your "C++ experts" buddies don't use that, or because it
wasn't
> > popular (it's still not in fact) at this time.
>
> You needn't enclose "C++ experts" in quotes.  These individuals created
> some of the most sophisticated (in the good sense), powerful, and
> elegant software I have seen in _any_ programming language.  They knew
> C++ through and through.

Sorry, it was not what the quotes intended.

> "Traits" is just not a well-known technique for C++, while attributes
> are widely used in Ada code.

Agreed. That's because most C++ people don't bother using any feature if
they don't badly need it.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Oh, you'll pay - just not with CPU cycles. :-) Consider it this way: Its
better to have the checks there by default (and by virtue of the language -
not by virtue of someone being "nice" and checking manually) and removing
them from the small percentage of code that may be performance critical (via
pragma Supress) than to have them NOT there by default (and requiring that
the programmers "roll their own", rather than have them by virtue of the
language) and try to intersperse them in the code as you start discovering
you have mysterious errors.

I can't even begin to tell you how often my hide has been saved by having
compiletime & runtime checks in place in Ada that exposed eggregious errors
that would have been very hard to track down without them. When I wear the
embedded/realtime hat, I understand the desirability of getting rid of the
checks (in some cases) but I'm glad they are there for me to decide to get
rid of rather than have to insert them myself *after* I start discovering
problems.

Now if C++ had some sort of compile-time switch that could be thrown that
said "Insert Checks", and the language actually had syntax/semantics that
provided information to check (ranges on numbers, array constraints, etc.)
then I'd think that C++ and Ada were at least equivalent in this area.
However, since there aren't any activatable checks and the language doesn't
provide nearly as much safety information anyway, I find this a major
liability.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote in message
news:9j9s3t$kn8$1@wanadoo.fr...
> > The best features of C++ still leave numerous faults in the final
product:
> >
> >   - No overflow checks
> >   - In some cases, no divide by zero checks (this feature may need to be
> >     enabled on your platform).
>
> "You don't have to pay for what you don't use" is the principle.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David C. Hoos]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?


> Marin David Condic wrote:
<snip>
> Furthermore, Ada does not force arrays to start at zero. This is fully
> supported with array'First and array'Last (with array'Length providing
> the difference)

Well, not really the difference -- It'd better be (the difference + 1) if
the
indices are numeric.

If the indices are enumerations, "difference" is not defined.

'Length always returns an integer value, regardless of the index type.

<snip>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David C. Hoos]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?


<snip>
> >   - weak enumeration types
> Why? Enum are a different type in the system.
> 
No, they're not.  Enums are simply names for integer values
that can be assigned to integers, used in place of an integer in
an expression, or passed as an argument to functions with an
integer argument type.

Furthermore, you can't get the name of an enum value as a
string intrinsically from the type.  In Ada, the 'Image attribute
returns the name of the enumeration value.

C/C++ enums are definitely weak.
 
<snip>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1789 bytes --]

Sounds ok...
It IS better to optimize when code is correct. And c++ takes the other
approach.
Is Pragma suppress part of the ARM or some extension?

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> a �crit dans
le message news: 9j9vmh$c5p$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> Oh, you'll pay - just not with CPU cycles. :-) Consider it this way: Its
> better to have the checks there by default (and by virtue of the
language -
> not by virtue of someone being "nice" and checking manually) and removing
> them from the small percentage of code that may be performance critical
(via
> pragma Supress) than to have them NOT there by default (and requiring that
> the programmers "roll their own", rather than have them by virtue of the
> language) and try to intersperse them in the code as you start discovering
> you have mysterious errors.
>
> I can't even begin to tell you how often my hide has been saved by having
> compiletime & runtime checks in place in Ada that exposed eggregious
errors
> that would have been very hard to track down without them. When I wear the
> embedded/realtime hat, I understand the desirability of getting rid of the
> checks (in some cases) but I'm glad they are there for me to decide to get
> rid of rather than have to insert them myself *after* I start discovering
> problems.
>
> Now if C++ had some sort of compile-time switch that could be thrown that
> said "Insert Checks", and the language actually had syntax/semantics that
> provided information to check (ranges on numbers, array constraints, etc.)
> then I'd think that C++ and Ada were at least equivalent in this area.
> However, since there aren't any activatable checks and the language
doesn't
> provide nearly as much safety information anyway, I find this a major
> liability.
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9j9r8m$aqk$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
>
>Well, to be comparing apples to apples - can you take an EXE compiled on
>Sun/Unix and run it on PC/Linux and have it work? That appears to be the
>test standard for portability between the various versions of Windows,
>right?

A better comparison would probably be if you can get them to work *after*
recompiling (but without modifying sources). I'd say the Win9x and WinNT
families are about as compatable in this respect as different flavors of Unix
are. Simple stuff will work fine, but if you try anything sexy with deep system
calls, there are going to be differences. Large Windows apps often end up having
some code that checks for the OS, and does different things depending on the
answer. For example, getting a list of running processes uses completely
different mechanisms in NT/2k than in 9x.

>Or in the other direction, how portable is an MS/DOS program written in
>(pick your language) if you compile it under WindowsNT with the appropriate
>compiler?

If its a game, not a chance. I know I'm harping on games, but that's really what
PC's are built for. (Why else would we all need realtime 3D sound and graphics
at consumer prices?) If you are using a wintel PC for something else, you are
really just along for the ride. :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Pragma Supress is standard Ada - you can supress specific checks or all of
them. See Annex L or ARM 11.5 for more details.

The neat thing is that you can supress specific checks or all checks. You
can do this on a specific entity (say an array) or you can do it within a
specific subprogram or you can do it for the whole program. Hence, you can
pick the level of checks you need and the places you need them and let
things go from there.

Compilers may also provide switches that let you toggle checks on/off as
well, so you don't necessarily have to do it by modifying the source code.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote in message
news:9ja31r$8ek$1@wanadoo.fr...
> Sounds ok...
> It IS better to optimize when code is correct. And c++ takes the other
> approach.
> Is Pragma suppress part of the ARM or some extension?
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[DuckE]

"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107191347.4a38f590@posting.google.com...
> Then Ada will be forever relegated to a fulfilling specific niches.  I
> believe you'll see more organizations switching from Ada to C++ rather
> than the other way around.
>

An interesting note...
A couple of years ago I asked one Ada vendor how the market was doing.  She
said she couldn't speak for everyone, but their buisness was on the rise.
She also said that when the mandate was first dropped they lost some
customers to C... but after some experience with C many were coming back to
Ada :-)

SteveD

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Darren New]

codesavvy wrote:
> Then Ada will be forever relegated to a fulfilling specific niches.

While this may be true, it's not because of Ada's capabilities. If it
offers everything C++ offers and more, yet people are only willing to
use it when they need the "and more", then it seems to me that the
problem (if such it is) is not with the language but with the social
institutions.

-- 
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
       San Diego, CA, USA (PST).  Cryptokeys on demand.
          Only a WIMP puts wallpaper on his desktop.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Martin Dowie]

Here's another link which you may find useful.
Apologies if this has been posted before.

http://www.adaic.com/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/


codesavvy <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107191355.534211d0@posting.google.com...
> I can't believe some of the posters in this thread.  Again I said that
> Ada 95 has nothing to offer that is substantially better than C++.  If
> there was then logically higher productivity would result.  I can't
> believe that you have a difficult time grasping this concept.  Some
> posters have been kind enough to provide me with anecdotal data and in
> one case a link to some data that Capers Jones has which I appreciate.
>
> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message
news:<X+JoNS25futh@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> > In article <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com>,
codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:
> > > "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in
message news:<9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> > >> Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are
you
> > >> bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Here is what I wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the answer is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is
> > > substantially better than what C++ offers.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is
> > > substantially better than C++.
> > >
> > >> If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits
and are
> > >> willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better
choice
> > >> than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for
you or
> > >> help you learn the language or answer questions about the language.
But a
> > >> blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you
guys
> > >> bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get
a
> > >> serious question answered.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> > > excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> > > don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> > > Ada 95 as opposed to C++.
> >
> > You started with "nothing to offer", but seem to have devolved into
> > "no productivity advantage to offer".  The reason I use Ada is not
> > productivity, but correctness.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> "Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B56CA73.3D3D09B6@earthlink.net>...

  <Experience with having ported software applications snipped>

> >
> 
> A miniscule subset of the vast number of software development projects undertaken.

In over 15 years of experience, for multiple companies, over 50% of the
projects I worked on either had to run on multiple platforms or were
subsequently ported to another platform.  This doesn't suggest anything
to you about the nature of the industry segment where Ada plays a major
role?

Of course if you compare the number of such projects to the universe
ofsoftware development projects undertaken (which includes Windows
applications), then even Unix programs become "A miniscule subset of the
vast number of software development projects undertaken".

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

codesavvy wrote:
> 
> "Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B56D060.EF478F36@earthlink.net>...
> > codesavvy wrote:
> > >
> > > Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? Of course you ignore the
> > > other question that pertains to the point I'm trying to make.
> >
> > Of course I ignored the questions to which I was not responding, I
> > conscientiously chose to respond only to the..yes..bogus question you
> > asked:
> 
> I'm glad you're admitting that you are purposely distorting the intent
> of what I wrote.

What an odd way to interpret my response. :-)

> It's not a bogus question when you answer it in the context of my
> post.  Many other people understood but you didn't.  That's ok you
> don't have to.

Clarity of expression is the key to gaining information.  You'll recall
your original post:

"I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.  I think the answer
is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially
better than what C++ offers.  I've read posts in this news group that
extoll Ada for it's many virtues but the truth of the matter is that
they are overrated if they exist at all.  Are there any statistics
that state that Ada leads to more reliable, maintainable, or robust
code than does C++?  What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
solve that C++ can't?"

You assert that:
- The following assertions are rather obvious...
- Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially better that what C++
offers.
- The truth of the matter is that [Ada's virtues] are overrated if they
exist at all.

You then asked for statistics showing that Ada leads to more reliable,
maintainable, or robust code than C++.  (And actually, nowhere in your
post is the term "productivity" used, the request for data is to support
Ada's claim to producing higher quality code, of which productivity
could be interpeted as being in the penumbra.)

That's a fair question; however, your first set of assertions poisoned
the well, establishing a hostile context.

Your final question is then ambiguous.  It could be _interpreted_ as
asking what you claim: "What class(es) of programming problems does Ada
solve _more productively than C++?_", but that's not what it says.

Posters in this group taking this tone while making such assertions and
demands typically have little experience with the industry segment where
Ada plays a significant role (or in industry as a whole).  This
perception is subsequently buttressed by your glaringly false assertions
that platform porting is very rarely done, and then continuing to
maintain that assertion.

You may not be a young inexperienced coder, but "if it walks like a
duck, and quacks like a duck..." :-)

Many such individuals do truly believe that there are problems that
their favorite programming language can solve that another, such as Ada,
can't.  (I've met them on numerous occasions.)  They need to be
disabused of that notion.

> So you make the final decision on what is appropriate and what is not.

Moi?  I think not.  I've been here a long time, seeking to share
knowledge, learn more, and aid the correction of the many fallacies that
continue to envelop Ada--this is just a continuation of that effort.

>  I don't think that you've been appointed to such a position.  As far
> as metrics vs. "hard-earned" experience (a nebulous concept at best) I

"Hard-earned" experience is a nebulous concept?  Okay, how about just
"experience".

Participants in this group have architected, designed, and written Ada
software for aircraft avionics (commercial and military), jet engines,
the space station, weapon control systems, flight simulators, high-speed
trains, robotics, missile flight controls, rocket engines, and for many
other realms.  I doubt any of us consider that experience "nebulous".

> believe that one of the problems with the software development
> community is that there is too much qualitative analysis and too
> little quantitative analysis.

Here I absolutely agree with you.  When I see individuals lobbying to
have a system that was implemented in Ada that came in on budget, on 
schedule--with excellent performance, reliability and maintainability
metrics that could be directly associated with the use of Ada language
features--discarded and be replaced with one coded in C++ because
"that's where the market is going" (literal quote!), there's something
very idiotic in this industry.

>  I haven't made any accusations that are
> glaringly false nor have I made any bogus assertions. 

Well, yes, you have, actually.

> As far as
> compiler platform ports, you offer little evidence to support your
> claim and thus it amounts to only an opinion that you have.

A different post rebuts this.

>  It seems
> that your main interest is in conducting a flame war.  I'm not
> interested though but thanks for playing.

I've made no personal attacks, disparaged no one's experience as "only
an opinion", have not intentionally misinterpreted or casually dismissed
another's statements, nor asserted another's motivations or agendas.  If
I'm participating in a flame war, it's purely in a reactive manner.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Mark Lundquist]

"codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
> How come it is not more widely accepted?

That is a very good question.

The simple answer -- a truism really -- is that for most decision-makers,
the perceived costs are not overcome by the perceived benefits.

So if we suppose for the sake of argument that the Ada advocates are right,
then Ada is not more widely accepted because (a) the marginal cost of
choosing Ada over the alternatives are supposed to be higher than the true
marginal cost; and/or (b) the benefits of using Ada are not sufficiently
understood or appreciated.

The way this actually plays out is pretty complex and gets into a lot of
history.  But I think at the core, it's a "critical mass" phenomenon (of
which "self-fulfilling prophecies" represent a case).  For a thorough
treatment of thos concept, I highly recommend Thomas C. Schelling's book,
"Micromotives and Macrobehavior", and especially chapter 3, "Thermostats,
lemons, and other families of models".

If I perceive that few others are choosing Language X, then I will tend to
believe that choosing Language X will place me at a disadvantage.  Everyone
else is thinking the same way.  As a result, adoption and retention of
Language X declines.  It takes a high level of perceived value to overcome
this (as indeed it has done for those who are choosing Ada).

> The stuff I read here states
> that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.

You might see that here sometimes.  Mostly it's hyperbole, and some posters
here are more given to that than others.  You'll also see it in combination
with anti-Microsuck^H^H^Hoft ranting (sorry! :-).

I think most participants in this ng would say that "the rest of the world"
is simply wrong, not necessarily stupid.

Incidentally, the level of one-true-languagism expressed on this ng seems to
have gone down over the past year or two.  Here you can find Ada fans who
are also fans of Eiffel, OCAML, Haskell, Ruby, and other languages.

>  From what I can
> tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.

Definitely true.  There's plenty of crap written in every language, and will
be in every language that has yet to be invented.  But this is hardly
relevant, don't you think?  I've never seen anyone say that code written in
any particular language can be considered good, solely by virtue of its
having been written in that language.

>  I think many who
> share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> re-think their positions.

OK, I think Ada's the best, but I'm willing to re-think my position.  But
since it's a thoughtfully held position in the first place, I will probably
need some help -- are you willing to provide it?

-- mark

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Mark Lundquist]

"Larry Hazel" <lhazel@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3B5655F0.3442DBF1@mindspring.com...

> Is Dr. McCormic the professor with the software controlling model trains?
If
> so, I believe his data showed an enormous productivity increase over C
(C++
> ????).

Yes -- he's the train guy!
-- mark

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Warren:

> OS/2 died a grizzly death because it was too costly to port/extend it to
> newer platforms (I understand it was largely assembler code). You never
> saw  OS/2 on the Alpha, but you did see windows there. Hmmm... I wonder
> what the difference was? ;-)

According to my knowledge, Windows is largely written in
assembler, so I suppose that the reason was something else.
Maybe that the Alpha architecture competed with the Power-2
architecture on which IBM runs AIX?

Jacob
-- 
Growing older is compulsory. Growing up isn't.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lao Xiao Hai]

codesavvy wrote:

> > Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> > real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> > distributed programming?
>
> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> significantly by having them available.

I thought Robert might respond to this since he has often dealt with this
issue so succinctly and with such clarity.   I'll give it a shot, echoing
Robert's most cogent points.

Ada is  intended to be more readable than writeable.  Consequently, simple
measures of productivity involving SLOC per man-month, etc. seldom have
a direct relationship to the lifecycle metrics of an Ada project.   For software
with a long lifespan, the more readable the code, the more easily it is to
understand it.   Since some estimates put the ratio of source code at 20 percent
for development and 80 percent for maintenance,  this becomes important.
Moreover, that 80 percent has sometimes been anecdotally divided into its
own percentages where 80 percent of the maintenance is trying to figure out
what the code does, two percent making the changes, and eight percent doing
the testing.   These are WAG's, of course, but reflect yet another of Ada's
goals:  enhance the understandability of the code so future programmers can
be more productive during maintenance.

Another important goal of Ada is to have a language design that makes it
possible for a compiler to catch as many errors as possible as early in the
development process as possible.   This particular feature of the language
is one reason why many of us choose it over some alternative such as C++.
Some of us, not you obviously, regard Ada as a productivity tool that helps
us with quality issues early in the software lifecycle.   Productivity without
quality is of dubious value when creating serious software.   This is not to
impugn the quality of your software.   Rather, some of us feel we are more
effective using the crutch of a tool such as Ada that keeps us from making
the kinds of mistakes we might make in a less rigorously defined language
such as C++.    Be gentle with us. Were we more intelligent, more careful,
more skillful, we might not need the kind of protection afforded by Ada.
Meanwhile, those who are better qualified to deal with the mysteries of
C++ are free to pursue their craft without the guarantees provided by Ada.
So be it.   Go forth and debug.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com
http://www.adaworks.com

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.]

From: Bob Leif
To: Richard Riehle et al.

Although, I believe that Ada is the best language and agree with most of the
arguments expressed by the Ada proponents in this thread, I do not know that
Ada is the best language. In fact, given the paucity of cited experimental
evidence, no one knows in the scientific or engineering sense which is the
"Best Language". Since no precise, objective means exists to quantify
software and the number of experiments to determine the quality of a major
software manufacturing tool, the programming language, is very small;
software development is neither a science nor an engineering discipline.
Presently, software language training probably belongs in the humanities as
a branch of linguistics. Parenthetically, this would probable greatly
improve the readability of the software.

Given the amount of money, human effort, and suffering involved in the
creation and use of software, this lack of scientific knowledge concerning
software development is particularly deplorable. I used the word suffering
to describe the effect of defects on the users of software. It probably is
also pertinent to those who pay for the development of software. This
miserable state is to be propounded by attempts to create new expensive
weaponry, such as a missile defense system. The institutions of higher
learning, the US National Science foundation and the US Department of
Defense share the responsibility for this situation.

A pharmaceutical company needs to invest about half a billion US dollars to
determine the safety and efficacy of a new drug. The total yearly cost of
software in the US and the rest of the developed world most likely is in the
range of 50 to 500 billion US dollars. This is 100 to 1,000 times the cost
of testing a new drug. We need much less discussion and much more data. My
opinion is that the services of experts in clinical drug trials will be
required for meaningful studies. Drug trials are not my field. However, I
know enough to state that our present software technology, at best with a
little charity, is equivalent to the results of a phase 1 clinical drug
trial. There are 3 phases of a drug trial. Phase 1 only establishes the
therapeutic level; it does not provide any acceptable evidence concerning
efficacy.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Lao Xiao Hai
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:20 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?




codesavvy wrote:

> > Does C++ offer built in and portable multitasking, protected objects,
> > real-time performance, built-in portable interrupt interfacing,
> > distributed programming?
>
> No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an
> Ada developer is using these features?  BTW I like these features in
> Ada 95 a lot.  I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased
> significantly by having them available.

I thought Robert might respond to this since he has often dealt with this
issue so succinctly and with such clarity.   I'll give it a shot, echoing
Robert's most cogent points.

Ada is  intended to be more readable than writeable.  Consequently, simple
measures of productivity involving SLOC per man-month, etc. seldom have
a direct relationship to the lifecycle metrics of an Ada project.   For
software
with a long lifespan, the more readable the code, the more easily it is to
understand it.   Since some estimates put the ratio of source code at 20
percent
for development and 80 percent for maintenance,  this becomes important.
Moreover, that 80 percent has sometimes been anecdotally divided into its
own percentages where 80 percent of the maintenance is trying to figure out
what the code does, two percent making the changes, and eight percent doing
the testing.   These are WAG's, of course, but reflect yet another of Ada's
goals:  enhance the understandability of the code so future programmers can
be more productive during maintenance.

Another important goal of Ada is to have a language design that makes it
possible for a compiler to catch as many errors as possible as early in the
development process as possible.   This particular feature of the language
is one reason why many of us choose it over some alternative such as C++.
Some of us, not you obviously, regard Ada as a productivity tool that helps
us with quality issues early in the software lifecycle.   Productivity
without
quality is of dubious value when creating serious software.   This is not to
impugn the quality of your software.   Rather, some of us feel we are more
effective using the crutch of a tool such as Ada that keeps us from making
the kinds of mistakes we might make in a less rigorously defined language
such as C++.    Be gentle with us. Were we more intelligent, more careful,
more skillful, we might not need the kind of protection afforded by Ada.
Meanwhile, those who are better qualified to deal with the mysteries of
C++ are free to pursue their craft without the guarantees provided by Ada.
So be it.   Go forth and debug.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com
http://www.adaworks.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> No, they're not.  Enums are simply names for integer values
> that can be assigned to integers, used in place of an integer in
> an expression, or passed as an argument to functions with an
> integer argument type.
Enum defines a new type.
I don't see the flaw of having an implicit conversion to int, as long as
there's is no implicit conversion to the enum.

> Furthermore, you can't get the name of an enum value as a
> string intrinsically from the type.  In Ada, the 'Image attribute
> returns the name of the enumeration value.

That is true, I love 'image

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[John R. Strohm]

Marin David Condic answered you, but you apparently didn't completely
understand his answer.

Taking "developer productivity" as your metric of interest basically
destroys the ability to conduct a meaningful language comparison.  If you go
back far enough, to studies that may well have been conducted before you
were born, you will find the interesting result that programmers, on
average, produce, over the life of a development project, ten lines of code
per day, and (here is the interesting part) that number is INDEPENDENT of
the language used.  This discovery went a long way to push the move from
assembly language to higher-order languages in the 1960s.

When you take "developer productivity" as your metric, you basically ignore
lifecycle costs.

Ada was designed to minimize lifecycle costs, at the POTENTIAL risk of
slightly higher initial development costs.  That risk did not really
materialize: development costs using Ada are typically not significantly
higher than development costs using C++.  Where Ada shines, as Condic
observes, is that the total lifecycle costs, the ongoing support costs, the
bugfinding and fixing costs in the out years, are MUCH lower than with
C/C++.  This is an issue that some commercial software companies
fundamentally choose to ignore: once the product is sold to the end loser,
it isn't their problem any more, as long as the buglist is not so egregious
as to turn the loser off forever.  (Even then, if the company enjoys an
effective monopoly on that product, it doesn't matter HOW bad the buglist
is: the loser is stuck.)

With military embedded systems, on the other hand, this isn't true.  The
company doesn't just do the initial development.  They also do the out-year
support and upgrade.  That system may well have a life exceeding 30 years,
and those software systems will still be needed.  The B-52 first flew in the
1950s, as I recall, and is still the mainstay of the fleet.  The F-16, the
first truly software-intensive bird, first flew in the late 1970s, and is
still on the front lines 20+ years later.  For systems like that, initial
development costs, which you are measuring under "developer productivity",
vanish when compared to total lifecycle costs, which you are by definition
not measuring.

C++ (and C, for that matter) take the viewpoint of "trust the programmer"
and allow the programmer to do whatever he wants, EVERY TIME, on the
assumption that once in a while the programmer needs to do something weird.
Ada aims at reducing bug generation and propagation, by attempting to catch
the bugs that are easy to commit and sometimes hard to track down.  Ada
allows the programmer to do whatever he wants, if he wants it bad enough,
but MAKES him go through some contortions if he is apparently doing
something that historically is known to cause problems.  These contortions
both force the programmer to think about it, and, much more importantly in
Ada's philosophy, warn the maintenance programmer TEN YEARS LATER that there
is heavy-duty black magic lurking in those contorted, tortured lines of
code.  (I've done low-level device drivers in Ada, including machine code
insertions as defined in the LRM.  I know what kind of contortions I had to
pull to do them.  They forced me to think CAREFULLY about the problem and
how to solve it.)

codesavvy <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107191355.534211d0@posting.google.com...
> I can't believe some of the posters in this thread.  Again I said that
> Ada 95 has nothing to offer that is substantially better than C++.  If
> there was then logically higher productivity would result.  I can't
> believe that you have a difficult time grasping this concept.  Some
> posters have been kind enough to provide me with anecdotal data and in
> one case a link to some data that Capers Jones has which I appreciate.
>
> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message
news:<X+JoNS25futh@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> > In article <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com>,
codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:
> > > "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in
message news:<9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> > >> Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are
you
> > >> bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Here is what I wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the answer is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is
> > > substantially better than what C++ offers.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is
> > > substantially better than C++.
> > >
> > >> If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits
and are
> > >> willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better
choice
> > >> than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for
you or
> > >> help you learn the language or answer questions about the language.
But a
> > >> blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you
guys
> > >> bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get
a
> > >> serious question answered.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an
> > > excellent language and may actually be better than C++.  However, I
> > > don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with
> > > Ada 95 as opposed to C++.
> >
> > You started with "nothing to offer", but seem to have devolved into
> > "no productivity advantage to offer".  The reason I use Ada is not
> > productivity, but correctness.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David C. Hoos, Sr.]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: July 22, 2001 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?


> > No, they're not.  Enums are simply names for integer values
> > that can be assigned to integers, used in place of an integer in
> > an expression, or passed as an argument to functions with an
> > integer argument type.
> Enum defines a new type.
On the contrary, enums and integers are completely interchangable.

> I don't see the flaw of having an implicit conversion to int, as long as
> there's is no implicit conversion to the enum.
Not only is implicit copnversion to enum, but you can convert
values out of range of the enum definition.

The only thing an enum type definition buys you is the ability to use
the name as a standin for the number -- nothing more.

Not only that, but the same name cannot be reused in C enums,
but they can in Ada - in fact, Ada enumeration values can overload
subprogram names.

I hope that this demonstrates the original authors assertion that C
enums are 'weak' to be a substantial understatement.

> 
> > Furthermore, you can't get the name of an enum value as a
> > string intrinsically from the type.  In Ada, the 'Image attribute
> > returns the name of the enumeration value.
> 
> That is true, I love 'image
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
> 

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> Not only is implicit copnversion to enum, but you can convert
> values out of range of the enum definition.

This is plain wrong.
No implicit conversion from int to enum.

enum COLOR
{ BLUE, RED, GREEN };

void f(COLOR c)
{
}

int main (void)
{
    f(0); // Wrong : doesn't compile
}

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David C. Hoos, Sr.]

OK.  I stand corrected far as C++ goes -- I was talking about
C enums, as I had lost sight of the fact that the original thread
was about C++.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: July 22, 2001 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?


> > Not only is implicit copnversion to enum, but you can convert
> > values out of range of the enum definition.
> 
> This is plain wrong.
> No implicit conversion from int to enum.
> 
> enum COLOR
> { BLUE, RED, GREEN };
> 
> void f(COLOR c)
> {
> }
> 
> int main (void)
> {
>     f(0); // Wrong : doesn't compile
> }
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
> 

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

Actually I responded in other posts in this thread that Ada is an
excellent language and it actually have more advantages than something
like C++.  I am willing to concede at this point that Ada 95 does have
significant advantages over C++.  However, I think it's fair to say
that C++ is more widely accepted and for Ada to become more widely
accepted companies will have to drop C++ and use Ada at some point. 
In order for this to happen upper management will have to be convinced
that they can be significantly more productive (how ever they measure
productivity) using Ada instead of C++.  They have to see a payback
for switching.  When I say there is plenty of crappy code written in
Ada I was pointing out that using Ada provides no guarantee that high
quality code will be produced.  I would actually like to see Ada more
widely used and I think it would be a shame if it was relegated to a
"niche" language.  However, I think this is exactly what's happening
because people that want to see Ada more widely adpopted aren't making
a very good case to the powers that be that can effect such changes. 
Wouldn't it be a shame if the "best" language was relegated to the
back burner?



"Mark Lundquist" <up.yerz@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Ffh67.385473$p33.7760243@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>...
> "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
> > How come it is not more widely accepted?
> 
> That is a very good question.
> 
> The simple answer -- a truism really -- is that for most decision-makers,
> the perceived costs are not overcome by the perceived benefits.
> 
> So if we suppose for the sake of argument that the Ada advocates are right,
> then Ada is not more widely accepted because (a) the marginal cost of
> choosing Ada over the alternatives are supposed to be higher than the true
> marginal cost; and/or (b) the benefits of using Ada are not sufficiently
> understood or appreciated.
> 
> The way this actually plays out is pretty complex and gets into a lot of
> history.  But I think at the core, it's a "critical mass" phenomenon (of
> which "self-fulfilling prophecies" represent a case).  For a thorough
> treatment of thos concept, I highly recommend Thomas C. Schelling's book,
> "Micromotives and Macrobehavior", and especially chapter 3, "Thermostats,
> lemons, and other families of models".
> 
> If I perceive that few others are choosing Language X, then I will tend to
> believe that choosing Language X will place me at a disadvantage.  Everyone
> else is thinking the same way.  As a result, adoption and retention of
> Language X declines.  It takes a high level of perceived value to overcome
> this (as indeed it has done for those who are choosing Ada).
> 
> > The stuff I read here states
> > that it is because the rest of the world is stupid.
> 
> You might see that here sometimes.  Mostly it's hyperbole, and some posters
> here are more given to that than others.  You'll also see it in combination
> with anti-Microsuck^H^H^Hoft ranting (sorry! :-).
> 
> I think most participants in this ng would say that "the rest of the world"
> is simply wrong, not necessarily stupid.
> 
> Incidentally, the level of one-true-languagism expressed on this ng seems to
> have gone down over the past year or two.  Here you can find Ada fans who
> are also fans of Eiffel, OCAML, Haskell, Ruby, and other languages.
> 
> >  From what I can
> > tell there is plenty of crappy code written in Ada.
> 
> Definitely true.  There's plenty of crap written in every language, and will
> be in every language that has yet to be invented.  But this is hardly
> relevant, don't you think?  I've never seen anyone say that code written in
> any particular language can be considered good, solely by virtue of its
> having been written in that language.
> 
> >  I think many who
> > share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> > significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> > re-think their positions.
> 
> OK, I think Ada's the best, but I'm willing to re-think my position.  But
> since it's a thoughtfully held position in the first place, I will probably
> need some help -- are you willing to provide it?
> 
> -- mark

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[@ 2001-07-23 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw)]

In article <7E9CC98C0715E092.A91B89D11C0D9738.014E27B4F97A2D54@lp.airnews.net>,

> Where Ada shines, as Condic
>observes, is that the total lifecycle costs, the ongoing support costs, the
>bugfinding and fixing costs in the out years, are MUCH lower than with
>C/C++.  This is an issue that some commercial software companies
>fundamentally choose to ignore: once the product is sold to the end loser,
>it isn't their problem any more, as long as the buglist is not so egregious
>as to turn the loser off forever.
 

But the above is how the commerical software world works.

The manager only cares about shipping the thing out of the door on time,
so they can show they met the schedule and get the raise they wanted, they
careless how buggy or well designed or documented it is. Let the next manager
or the QA manager worry about it, becuase the manager who shipped the product
will be somewhere else by then any way.

welcome to the realworld. 

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Martin Dowie]

I'd have to agree that there is some crappy Ada code out there (some
of it written be me I'm sure :-). But the worst offender I came across
was trying to write in a COBOL-style - yet to my knowledge he never
had ever even seen any COBOL code!

codesavvy <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5be89e2f.0107222015.5140bbae@posting.google.com...
> Actually I responded in other posts in this thread that Ada is an
[snip]
> for switching.  When I say there is plenty of crappy code written in
> Ada I was pointing out that using Ada provides no guarantee that high
> quality code will be produced.  I would actually like to see Ada more
[snip]

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Dmitry Kazakov]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:12:17 +0200, "Bertrand Augereau"
<baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote:

>> Not only is implicit copnversion to enum, but you can convert
>> values out of range of the enum definition.
>
>This is plain wrong.
>No implicit conversion from int to enum.
>
>enum COLOR
>{ BLUE, RED, GREEN };
>
>void f(COLOR c)
>{
>}
>
>int main (void)
>{
>    f(0); // Wrong : doesn't compile
>}

And what about this:

enum COLOR { BLUE, RED, GREEN };

int main (void)
{
   COLOR	 X = BLUE;

   switch (X)
   {
       case 0   : break;
   }
   return 0;
}

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

>
> enum COLOR { BLUE, RED, GREEN };
>
> int main (void)
> {
>    COLOR X = BLUE;
>
>    switch (X)
>    {
>        case 0   : break;
>    }
>    return 0;
> }
>

I don't see this type of code as a coding mistake, it is just a nonsense way
of doing it. This can only be an intentional mistake and type safety is
there mainly for protecting you against non-intentional mistakes. That's
what forbidding implicit int->enum is for.
I'm not sure a compiler has to take care of this error, though Ada
programmers might think otherwise.
It is often nice to have a enum->int conversion, especially when you can map
your enum to some int you need.

enum BOOL {
    FALSE = 0,
    TRUE = !0;
};

Then if you need a enum->int mapping, you just have it for free by the fact
enum are reprensented by int in the machine (as with Ada, I suppose). I
think you can do that in Ada if you need it with using clause.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>In article <slrn9lgceb.jq.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>> * Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>>>`operator=' improves readability if left side is non-trivial.
>>>
>>>Example:
>>>A->foo[1].start.x = A->foo[1].start.x % 640;
>>>A->foo[1].start.x %= 640;
>> 
>> declare
>>   w : myType renames A.foo(1).start.x;
>> begin
>>   w := w mod 640;
>> end;
>
>That's evil and takes 5 lines instead of just 1.

DECLARE w : myType RENAMES A.foo(1).start.x;  BEGIN w := w MOD 640;  END;

>>>Compiler (at least gcc) warns when you screw formants.
>> 
>> printf is an runtime interpreter. That's ugly.
>
>Almost all printfs are compile-time printfs.
>Complire could as well support printf or equivalent.

-------------------- t.c --------------------
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char**argv) {
   return printf("No of arguments %d for %s.\n", argc, argv[argc-1]);
}
-------------------- t.c --------------------
~$ gcc -O9 -S t.c
-------------------- t.s --------------------
.LC0:
	.string	"No of arguments %d for %s.\n"
.text
	.align 4
.globl main
	.type	 main,@function
main:
	pushl %ebp
	movl %esp,%ebp
	subl $8,%esp
	movl 8(%ebp),%edx
	movl 12(%ebp),%eax
	addl $-4,%esp
	movl -4(%eax,%edx,4),%eax
	pushl %eax
	pushl %edx
	pushl $.LC0
	call printf
	movl %ebp,%esp
	popl %ebp
	ret
-------------------- t.s --------------------

Please refine your argument.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Bertrand Augereau wrote:
>> What do you expect by reading the source code line? What does really
>> happen? Why can this remain in production software for years?
>
>The semantics is that it is an unsigned like any other unsigned, except
>its capacity is different. And I would do capacity checking before this
>affectation, anyway.

Almost all people I showed this line instantly respond, that it stores the
number of remaining packets. A few seconds later some people came up with
the question how to store this in an IP packet because there is not field
for. So they noticed the error due their profund knowledge of the context.

Nobody was irritated by unmatching typed (even the compiler ...)

-------------------- t.c --------------------
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char**argv) {
   struct {
      unsigned int b : 1;
      unsigned int c : 1;
      unsigned int d : 12;
   } tt;
   tt.b = 4;
   tt.c = 1;
   tt.d = 105;
   return printf("%d, %d, %d.\n", tt.b, tt.c, tt.d);
}
-------------------- t.s --------------------
.LC0:
	.string	"%d, %d, %d.\n"
main:
	pushl %ebp
	movl %esp,%ebp
	andl $-2,%edx
	orl $2,%edx
	andl $-16381,%edx
	orl $420,%edx
	pushl $105
	movl %edx,%eax
	shrl $1,%eax
	andl $1,%eax
	pushl %eax
	movl %edx,%eax
	andl $1,%eax
	pushl %eax
	pushl $.LC0
	call printf
	movl %ebp,%esp
	popl %ebp
	ret
---------------- reorder t.s ----------------
	pushl $105        ; last argument on the stack (trivial)
	;
	andl $-2,%edx     ; edx is unknown value (clear the lowest bit)
	orl $2,%edx       ; set the second lowest bit
	andl $-16381,%edx ; mask F..FC003 => edx = ?.. ?000000 00000010
	orl $420,%edx     ; set some bits    edx = ?.. ?000001 10100110
	;
	movl %edx,%eax    ; edx = ?.. ?000001 10100110
	shrl $1,%eax      ; eax = ?....?00000 11010011
	andl $1,%eax      ; eax = 1
	pushl %eax        ; third argument on the stack
	;
	movl %edx,%eax    ; eax = ?...?000001 10100110
	andl $1,%eax      ; eax = 0
	pushl %eax        ; second argument on the stack
---------------- reorder t.s ----------------

Ok, the compiler is truly irritated.

>> 'guess'. No more questions.
>
>That's a bit of a nasty reaction. You don't have to be this arrogant.
>I myself don't use this type of code often, and I don't have any standard
>right there.

Sorry, it sound like 'I do not have a standard, I learned by trial and error.'

>The closest thing to a ref manual I got here, MSDN, says that for aligning
>on a int boundary, you have to specify a bitfield size of zero, so it must
>imply that other bitfields are packed, which sounds logical.

Definitly.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Bertrand Augereau wrote:
>It IS better to optimize when code is correct. And c++ takes the other
>approach.
>Is Pragma suppress part of the ARM or some extension?

It's part of ARM.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* ..@t wrote:
>The manager only cares about shipping the thing out of the door on time,
>so they can show they met the schedule and get the raise they wanted, they
>careless how buggy or well designed or documented it is. Let the next manager
>or the QA manager worry about it, becuase the manager who shipped the product
>will be somewhere else by then any way.

So they should use Perl.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Dmitry Kazakov]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:27:27 +0200, "Bertrand Augereau"
<baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote:

>> enum COLOR { BLUE, RED, GREEN };
>>
>> int main (void)
>> {
>>    COLOR X = BLUE;
>>
>>    switch (X)
>>    {
>>        case 0   : break;
>>    }
>>    return 0;
>> }
>
>I don't see this type of code as a coding mistake, it is just a nonsense way
>of doing it. This can only be an intentional mistake and type safety is
>there mainly for protecting you against non-intentional mistakes.

What is the difference between "intentional" and "non-intentional"
mistakes? Both result in blue-screen. It is nice to have Windows. We
can always say, that it is Microsoft's fault when our programs crash
(:-)). But what would be a blue-screen for a flight control system?

>That's what forbidding implicit int->enum is for.

Does the code above not contain an implicit int->enum conversion? 

>I'm not sure a compiler has to take care of this error, though Ada
>programmers might think otherwise.

No doubts. BTW in Ada the counterpart of C++ switch statement shall
cover all alternatives, so being translated into Ada

switch (X)
{
   case BLUE  : break;
}

would be also illegal, because it is not clear what to do with RED and
GREEN.

>It is often nice to have a enum->int conversion, especially when you can map
>your enum to some int you need.
>
>enum BOOL {
>    FALSE = 0,
>    TRUE = !0;
>};
>
>Then if you need a enum->int mapping, you just have it for free by the fact
>enum are reprensented by int in the machine (as with Ada, I suppose). I
>think you can do that in Ada if you need it with using clause.

enum <-> int mapping is an implementation detail. There is no need to
expose it. A program that relies on the fact that on some particular
machine, occasionaly the representation of COLOR::BLUE and int::0 are
same, is poorly designed. That C++ allows such things be implicit [in
Ada you may achieve the same effect only by an explicit way], is a
clear language design fault.

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> >
> >I don't see this type of code as a coding mistake, it is just a nonsense
way
> >of doing it. This can only be an intentional mistake and type safety is
> >there mainly for protecting you against non-intentional mistakes.
>
> What is the difference between "intentional" and "non-intentional"
> mistakes? Both result in blue-screen. It is nice to have Windows. We
> can always say, that it is Microsoft's fault when our programs crash
> (:-)). But what would be a blue-screen for a flight control system?

Oh, I never do that ;-)
You are right for critical applications. But I write videogames for a living
(PC & PS2) and you can't even rely on hardware and OS in this field, the
specs vary every day and the deadlines are insane, so the quality of your
code is not that important ;-)
I just wanted to say that *nobody* would write such code as a mistake. It
can only be intentional.
And I don't see whant "non-intentional" mistake you can do with this
enum->int conversion.

>
> >That's what forbidding implicit int->enum is for.
>
> Does the code above not contain an implicit int->enum conversion?
Nope. The enum is converted to an int, and then you can test its value if
you want. But I have to repeat it is totally illogical and nobody would
write such a thing.

>
> >I'm not sure a compiler has to take care of this error, though Ada
> >programmers might think otherwise.
>
> No doubts. BTW in Ada the counterpart of C++ switch statement shall
> cover all alternatives, so being translated into Ada
>
> switch (X)
> {
>    case BLUE  : break;
> }
>
> would be also illegal, because it is not clear what to do with RED and
> GREEN.

Most compilers issue a warning when you do not test every alternative of an
enum.
GCC does for instance.

>
> >It is often nice to have a enum->int conversion, especially when you can
map
> >your enum to some int you need.
> >
> >enum BOOL {
> >    FALSE = 0,
> >    TRUE = !0;
> >};
> >
> >Then if you need a enum->int mapping, you just have it for free by the
fact
> >enum are reprensented by int in the machine (as with Ada, I suppose). I
> >think you can do that in Ada if you need it with using clause.
>
> enum <-> int mapping is an implementation detail. There is no need to
> expose it. A program that relies on the fact that on some particular
> machine, occasionaly the representation of COLOR::BLUE and int::0 are
> same, is poorly designed. That C++ allows such things be implicit [in
> Ada you may achieve the same effect only by an explicit way], is a
> clear language design fault.

Agreed. Too much implicit is dangerous.
The major flaw of C++ is inheriting for C but I love the non-verbose syntax.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marc A. Criley]

"..@t" wrote:
> 
> In article <7E9CC98C0715E092.A91B89D11C0D9738.014E27B4F97A2D54@lp.airnews.net>,
> 
> > Where Ada shines, as Condic
> >observes, is that the total lifecycle costs, the ongoing support costs, the
> >bugfinding and fixing costs in the out years, are MUCH lower than with
> >C/C++.  This is an issue that some commercial software companies
> >fundamentally choose to ignore: once the product is sold to the end loser,
> >it isn't their problem any more, as long as the buglist is not so egregious
> >as to turn the loser off forever.
> 
> 
> But the above is how the commerical software world works.
> 
> The manager only cares about shipping the thing out of the door on time,
> so they can show they met the schedule and get the raise they wanted, they
> careless how buggy or well designed or documented it is. Let the next manager
> or the QA manager worry about it, becuase the manager who shipped the product
> will be somewhere else by then any way.
> 
> welcome to the realworld.

In the world where long-term and lifecycle costs do matter, i.e., the
world of defense contracting (where few would argue that it is not
infrequently divorced from "the real world" :-), Ada is a "win" in the
reduction of life-cycle costs.

But what is happening is that some such contractors, seeing to emulate
the commercial software _development_ model, are adapting C++, etc., in
the expectation that they'll be able to tap into the available
development expertise, and lifecycle costs (as usual) are an
afterthought.  Commercial software developers rarely worry about
lifecycle costs, and those abandoning Ada have ignored that trait of
commercial firms.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

One more time with the links because they are *really* worth reading as
possibly the *only* "controlled" experiment in software productivity. (Maybe
there are others, but this is the only one I know of where we are taling
about doing the *same* project more than once with a multitude of developers
each taking a stab at it so that it has some statistical significance and
the only variable being language.)

http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/ADACASE.HTM
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2000/aug/mccormick.asp

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Mark Lundquist" <up.yerz@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hhh67.385587$p33.7760908@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Larry Hazel" <lhazel@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3B5655F0.3442DBF1@mindspring.com...
>
> > Is Dr. McCormic the professor with the software controlling model
trains?
> If
> > so, I believe his data showed an enormous productivity increase over C
> (C++
> > ????).
>
> Yes -- he's the train guy!
> -- mark
>
>
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

I don't know about "wrong" - but I think most of us that frequent this group
would contend that language-adoption-decisions are frequently (if not
mostly) made for reasons other than technical merit and/or economic
rationality.

I've argued here in the past about the weaknesses Ada has in terms of
economic rationality - mostly trying to observe where it is that other
languages have an edge that is preventing Ada from being adopted with the
hope that it encourages developers to fill those gaps. I think there *are*
cases where the rejection of Ada is a rational decision based on economics
or (occasionally) technical merit.

Still, I think that language decisions become highly emotional things with
the techies wanting to opt for the "familiar" (high comfort factor) and
management wanting to opt for what has worked before (risk aversion). I'd
suspect a large number of participants here would agree.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Mark Lundquist" <up.yerz@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ffh67.385473$p33.7760243@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> I think most participants in this ng would say that "the rest of the
world"
> is simply wrong, not necessarily stupid.
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lao Xiao Hai]

codesavvy wrote:

> >
> > How do _you_ write multitasking/multithreading applications in C++ ?
> > With a lot (really a lot) of system calls ? Very, very portable ;-)

However, there is no consistency checking of these system calls relative
to the underlying program.   Ada's tasking model is useful because it is
integrated into the overall program and the compiler can do full type
checking, procedure call conformance evalutation,  enforce visibility
rules (which are nearly absent in C++), and a host of other things that
require a coherent model for development.    In this regard, C++ falls
far short of Ada.

> Do you have a metric for measuring the increase in productivity that
> this brings about?

Anecdotal.  I worked with a programmer who was constantly complaining about
Ada.  He wanted to use C++.   After a couple of months he finally came to me with,
"I think I am beginning to get it.  With C and C++ I can compile anything I write and
then spend a long time debugging it.   With Ada, it takes me a long time to get my
program to successfully compile, but when it does, there is less debugging to do."

This is difficult to measure using the usual tools for software metrics.   Most metric
methods are not at a sufficient level of granularity to differentiate between the many
steps in bringing a program into production.   Most managers do not take the time to
collect metrics at that level of detail.

> I hope the compiler is consistent from OS to OS
> for Ada.  How often is portability from one system to the next
> required so that all one has to do is recompile and everything will
> work the same needed?  Not very often, almost never IMO.

Anecdote, again.   On an Army Command and Control system, the team
I was advising was developing an Ada system for a computer someone
had purchased on promises of good performance from the computer
salesperson.  The team was unable to meet its perfomance objectives,
largely because of the tasking implementation on the target platform.
Someone suggested converting the whole thing over to C.    This, of
course, would not have helped, but in a panic people will grasp at any
flimsy straw floating on the surface.

Along came a salesperson for Harris Computing, offering to run the software
on their Nighthawk.   "Oh no," thought the project manager.  "We have to convert
the Ada code to compile on their machine? "    During original design, the team
had carefully packaged all the platform-dependent code at the lowest possible
level of the design.   All the vanilla-flavored Ada code ported perfectly.  The
low-level package, consisting of a few-hundred lines, was ported easily with
the help of technicians from Harris.   Performance objectives were met and the
project came in on-time, within budget.

Prologue.   As successful as the Ada version was, another company later won
the contract.   I no longer have any association with this project, but as I am told,
they hated Ada.   No technical reasons.   Simply the usual stupidity.   My informant
tells me they sought and got funding to convert the whole thing to their favorite
language and it is still not working properly.

> > And - some of the "big" features of C++ like exception handling were
> > copied from Ada.
>
> So what?

So, it was done badly.   C++ exception handling is far more complex than necessary.
I read a three-part article about C++ exception handling  in C++ Report several
years ago that was simply scary.    The more deeply one examines C++ exception
handling, the more one wants to avoid it, especially for safety-critical software.

Richard Riehle
AdaWorks Software Engineering
richard@adaworks.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lao Xiao Hai]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:

> > Ada 95 on the other hand gives you the ability to specify the layout of
> > structures with greater precision (in general).  This gives it an edge
> over C++.
>
> What do you mean?

With Ada it is easier to create platform-independent software designs.   As a
very simple example, consider a simple integer.   How big is an integer in
C++?  What is its range of values?     What is the required size of an integer
for your application?   What is the required range of values?    How do I
ensure that one integer is not used where I should be using another in C++?

In Ada, I can define my own integer types, each of which can be uniquely
identified in a specific scope and with control over direct visibility.  Each
can have its own range of values.    It is wonderfully simple.  So simple that
one wonders why C++ cannot do it as easily.

Even if I choose not to define a unique set of integers with their own ranges,
I have one more level of protection in making function and procedure calls:
named association.   C++ provides no such protection.   Consider a C++
function in which there are three parameters all of type int.  How does one
code a call to ensure that the reader knows the right formal argument is
mapped to the right actual argument?  Production code in Ada routinely uses
named association to prevent stupid errors.

One could go on with many more examples, but the real answer is for you to
study this subject in some depth on your own so you can understand enough
of the subtelties to realize just how much more powerful Ada is, in its rigor,
in its reliability, in its syntactic and semantic constructs.   C++, as good as
it is in many ways, simply does not stand up when one does a detailed
comparison of the two languages.

The problem is that most people are too busy, too lazy, or too wrapped up
in their own biases to do that kind of comparison.

Richard Riehle
AdaWorks Software Engineering
richard@adaworks.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> > The best features of C++ still leave numerous faults in the final product:
> >   - No overflow checks
> >   - In some cases, no divide by zero checks (this feature may need to be
> >     enabled on your platform).
> 
> "You don't have to pay for what you don't use" is the principle.

What you save is far less than what you gain by having the check in place (the
cost of debugging is far costlier than the few cycles you save). As
someone else pointed out, you can disable this in production code if you like.

> >   - No array bounds checking, unless you use classes to do this for you
> >     (a very costly approach for small arrays)
> Plain wrong. Just look at STL's vector. You can use it with or without
> bounds checking depending your needs. And it's very efficient.

It may be "efficient enough" for larger arrays, but it is still very heavy
handed for a 6 character array ;-)  It doesn't have to be a large array
to be a problem.

...snip...
> > Or..
> >
> >     The Ada approach :
> >
> >     1. Build hang glider
> >     2. Fix identified bugs
> >     3. Repeat 2 as required
> >     4. Flight test
> 
> I guess you will agree the development process is not inherent to the
> language.
> You can build clean software in C++ or Java using the good methods, as well
> as in Ada.

The problem however, is that these other languages do a relatively poor
job of identifying other problems up front. To compensate, you site 
"methods" or "practices", which require volunteer effort. With Ada, the
checks are part of the compile process, like it or not.

> In the field I work (videogames), this is not the case, but I have planned
> in more critical domains (though not that critical), and I understand those
> constraints.
> I do think the main difference is that people who program in Ada are less
> numerous and therefore more competent than the vast majority of C++
> developers.

You assume a lot there.

> The subject line was not mine, I was just making the point that many people
> criticizing C++ don't know much of it.

Many would say the opposite is true. Many people simply do not want to learn
Ada and actually try to apply it. And this won't work overnight.. you need
to gain real experience with it before you appreciate its beauty. One or
two semesters in University is no substitute for real experience.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> > >I'm not sure a compiler has to take care of this error, though Ada
> > >programmers might think otherwise.
> >
> > No doubts. BTW in Ada the counterpart of C++ switch statement shall
> > cover all alternatives, so being translated into Ada
> >
> > switch (X)
> > {
> >    case BLUE  : break;
> > }
> >
> > would be also illegal, because it is not clear what to do with RED and
> > GREEN.
> 
> Most compilers issue a warning when you do not test every alternative of an
> enum.
> GCC does for instance.

I believe this is a relatively recent innovation on the part of GCC. It is
certainly not part of other compilers (and GCC is hardly representative
of the masses for C/C++). Even GCC does not report it by default. You have
to enable this "feature".

This is another area that Ada excels, because there is a compiler standard 
that dictates what the Ada compiler must flag (in all implementations). This 
is simply NOT true of C/C++ compilers on other platforms. HP's C compiler 
was one of the worst. I'd have to test this case on their C++ compiler, to 
know for sure, but I doubt it complains.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Warren:
> 
> > OS/2 died a grizzly death because it was too costly to port/extend it to
> > newer platforms (I understand it was largely assembler code). You never
> > saw  OS/2 on the Alpha, but you did see windows there. Hmmm... I wonder
> > what the difference was? ;-)
> 
> According to my knowledge, Windows is largely written in
> assembler, so I suppose that the reason was something else.
> Maybe that the Alpha architecture competed with the Power-2
> architecture on which IBM runs AIX?
> 
> Jacob
> --
> Growing older is compulsory. Growing up isn't.

You're thinking maybe of Win95 and cousins. The NT, 2000, XP
family are not assembly language based.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"..@t" wrote:
> In article <7E9CC98C0715E092.A91B89D11C0D9738.014E27B4F97A2D54@lp.airnews.net>,
> > Where Ada shines, as Condic
> >observes, is that the total lifecycle costs, the ongoing support costs, the
> >bugfinding and fixing costs in the out years, are MUCH lower than with
> >C/C++.  This is an issue that some commercial software companies
> >fundamentally choose to ignore: once the product is sold to the end loser,
> >it isn't their problem any more, as long as the buglist is not so egregious
> >as to turn the loser off forever.
> 
> But the above is how the commerical software world works.

Only the unenlightened companies have to work that way...

> The manager only cares about shipping the thing out of the door on time,
> so they can show they met the schedule and get the raise they wanted, they
> careless how buggy or well designed or documented it is. Let the next manager
> or the QA manager worry about it, becuase the manager who shipped the product
> will be somewhere else by then any way.
> 
> welcome to the realworld.

The "real world" is often the one where the "end losers" are the company's
own staff. The real losers are the developers that stay long enough to see
their own same code again, and again, and again...

Smarter departments and developers like to move onto new projects ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Mark Lundquist wrote:
> "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com...
...snip...
> >  I think many who
> > share the view that Ada is the best programming language offering
> > significant advantages over other programming language might want to
> > re-think their positions.
> 
> OK, I think Ada's the best, but I'm willing to re-think my position.  But
> since it's a thoughtfully held position in the first place, I will probably
> need some help -- are you willing to provide it?
> 
> -- mark

You'll have to give me something other than C++. C/C++ -- been there, 
done that. It won't go the distance towards quality.

C/C++ was important for reasons other than quality. But those reasons 
are now becoming less relevant with other choices emerging. There is
now a much greater concern for quality.. which is causing many to look
for better answers. This is a good thing, and long overdue for many ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

codesavvy wrote:
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com>...
> > codesavvy wrote:
> > > Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107181114410.3159-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>...
> > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> > > > > From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> >  .......snip........
> > What soooo many people keep overlooking in this "productivity issue"
> > is the _TOTAL_ cost. This has been repeatedly been pointed out by others
> > here, but many C/C++ zealots seem to fail to completely grasp this issue.
> > The amount of time spent in a debugger for Ada is small. The amount of
> > "weird bug" issues is also extremely small for Ada code in general.
> >
> > I have spent a major part of my career chasing down other peoples' (and
> > in some cases my own ;-) memory corruption problems. Sure, it was very
> > efficient to slap together that C/C++ project. But when you add all that
> > time to find out where the memory corruption came from, and all those
> > future bug reports that eventually required investigation, Ada wins
> > hands down on a comparison comparison basis. Where do you want to spend
> > your time? In the debugger, or crafting new code?
> 
> Crafting new code.  Hopefully I won't have to chase down any more
> defects that occur during elaboration :-).  Seriously I agree that the
> memory corruption problems can be very nasty and very difficult to
> fix.

Ain't they fun? I have been spending this week and last at work, trying to
find the source of some memory corruption. So far, I have managed to find 3 
new "other" memory problems, that I wasn't looking for.. scarey!

> > The challenge is to get everyone to recognize that you don't measure
> > productivity in terms of delivering the final product. Measure it in
> > terms of delivering the "_perfected_ product". Then consider the cost
> > of maintaining it after it is delivered/installed.
> 
> I like your ideas and I agree with the points you are making.  It
> seems to me that if indeed Ada 95 offers a better, more productive
> programming solution to many problems that are solved using C++ then
> it is a travesty that Ada 95 is not more widely used.  I think your
> metric for productivity is exactly right.  What has amazed me
> regarding this discussion is that so many of the participents seem to
> be unconcerned about measuring productivity.  In the final analysis I
> believe that in order for Ada 95 to be more widely adopted is a case
> that is backed by quantitative data showing the productivity (cost
> savings) of using Ada.

The www.adaic.org site is a starting place. See:

    http://www.adaic.org/intro/c.html

I am sure that others in this ng can give additional references, and in
some cases testimonials ;-)

> > Another way to look at this issue is that the Ada compiler uses CPU
> > cycles to spot programming errors for you. Conversely, the C/C++
> > compiler only looks for gross errors, but otherwise blesses your
> > code with the ability to "blow away the whole leg", if that is the
> > instruction you have given. And with automatic type promotion etc.,
> > C/C++ leaves a few surprises in store for good measure.
> 
> Unchecked_Conversion can "blow away the whole leg" as well :-).  I
> think that skilled developers are the most important factor in
> acheiving "high productivity."  I've seen some very convoluted Ada
> code as well where type definitions were very poorly designed.  You're
> right about the surprises that C/C++ has.

I think you will find that Ada programmers do their level best to avoid
anything that has "Unchecked" in it. In some cases, their coding mandate
(flight critical systems) will demand it. In others, it may just be a 
matter of pride ;-)

However, another benefit of Ada that I like, is that due to a lack of a
macro preprocessor, I can do a grep of Ada source code looking for 
"unchecked" and not miss any instances of it due to macro hiding -- a
major pain in C/C++ sometimes. Once you have this information, you can
scrutinize those sections again, to see if they are related to problems
you might have.

$ grep -i unchecked *.ad[sb]

> > Anyway, the whole issue keeps coming down to the point of how you
> > want to measure "productivity". You need to expand your view on that
> > IMHO.
> 
> I basically do agree with your ideas on productivity.  I just would
> like to see some quantitative data that support Ada as being more
> productive as you have defined productive.  If there have been studies
> done or white papers written that make quatitative arguments I would
> really like to read them.  You make some very good points but
> management for the most part will not listen because they won't take
> the risk of using Ada instead of C++ without some hard evidence to
> back up the claims regarding the increased productivity by using Ada.

Try http://www.adaic.org/intro/c.html and maybe others in this ng will
point you to other studies.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.]

From: Bob Leif
To: Marin David Condic et al.
Although I like the results of Professor McCormick's experiment, they are
clearly insufficient for making billion dollar and national security
decisions. One major problem is that, it is virtually impossible to do a
double blind experiment where neither the instructor nor the student knew
the name of the programming language that was being taught. The concept of a
placebo is also totally inappropriate for this type of study.

I suspect that the only way to compensate for the lack of these two basic
tools is to increase the study size and expense. If we had parallel classes
for the languages and selected the students at random for each language,
meaningful results could be obtained. In the case of the other languages, we
would have to find faculty members who really believed in the other
languages and had a level of enthusiasm equal to Professors McCormick,
Feldman, Dewar, etc.

One way to obtain funding for this type of study is to include gender as a
variable. If we can prove that the C class of languages are sexist, we have
got it made. I would not be surprised if this were true.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Marin David Condic
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:51 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?


One more time with the links because they are *really* worth reading as
possibly the *only* "controlled" experiment in software productivity. (Maybe
there are others, but this is the only one I know of where we are taling
about doing the *same* project more than once with a multitude of developers
each taking a stab at it so that it has some statistical significance and
the only variable being language.)

http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/ADACASE.HTM
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2000/aug/mccormick.asp

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Mark Lundquist" <up.yerz@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hhh67.385587$p33.7760908@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Larry Hazel" <lhazel@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3B5655F0.3442DBF1@mindspring.com...
>
> > Is Dr. McCormic the professor with the software controlling model
trains?
> If
> > so, I believe his data showed an enormous productivity increase over C
> (C++
> > ????).
>
> Yes -- he's the train guy!
> -- mark
>
>
>

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[tmoran]

>clearly insufficient for making billion dollar and national security
>decisions.
  We currently make those decisions with no solid information.  Even
jello would be better than hot air.

>One major problem is that, it is virtually impossible to do a
>double blind experiment where neither the instructor nor the student knew
>the name of the programming language that was being taught. The concept of a
>placebo is also totally inappropriate for this type of study.
  Remember we're looking for a substantial effect so sensitivity is
not terribly important.  If the Hawthorne effect overwhelms the language
effect, perhaps we should stop worrying about languages and instead
devote our energies to methods of programmer motivation.  IIRC after
Hawthorne they forgot about their original control variable and instead
went on, productively, to study motivation.

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <mailman.995950476.32432.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>, "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <rleif@rleif.com> writes:

> Although I like the results of Professor McCormick's experiment, they are
> clearly insufficient for making billion dollar and national security
> decisions. One major problem is that, it is virtually impossible to do a
> double blind experiment where neither the instructor nor the student knew
> the name of the programming language that was being taught.

The idea that students would subconciously apply more effort because the
language is Ada is totally at odds with Ada's reputation among those who
do not know it.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Colin Paul Gloster]

In article <CME57.725$Y47.8615@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison wrote:
"In article <3B5FDFA0@MailAndNews.com>, Vinzent Hoefler says...
 >
 >Original Message From Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@icn.siemens.de>
 >
 >>What is the superior feature that justifies the creation of C++ at
 >>a time where Ada were already long available ?
 >
 >Kind of backwards compatibility, I guess. It looks like C.
  
  That's close. I believe the original reason was an attempt to drag C coders
  kicking and screaming into the modern era. [..]"

Closer. Bjarne Strousup would have had Algol 68 with Classes if he had his
way but went for C with Classes to get any sort of uptake.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Pat Rogers]

"Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote in message
news:9jff9l$sqp$1@wanadoo.fr...
> > Not only is implicit copnversion to enum, but you can convert
> > values out of range of the enum definition.
>
> This is plain wrong.
> No implicit conversion from int to enum.
>
> enum COLOR
> { BLUE, RED, GREEN };
>
> void f(COLOR c)
> {
> }
>
> int main (void)
> {
>     f(0); // Wrong : doesn't compile
> }


Try the other direction:

    enum Foo { Red, Orange, Green };

    enum Bar { Mon, Tue, Wed };

    int X = Orange + Tue;

which shows that they are really just ints.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Bertrand Augereau]

> Try the other direction:
>
>     enum Foo { Red, Orange, Green };
>
>     enum Bar { Mon, Tue, Wed };
>
>     int X = Orange + Tue;
>
> which shows that they are really just ints.
>

As I pointed out before, this is not a real case error.
If it accepted
Foo X = Orange + Tue;
it would be bad conception, for sure.

But standard C++ doesn't even accept
Foo X = Orange + Red;
!!!
So there's no way you make an non-intentional mistake, if you want to do
such thing as arithmetics on enum, you have to write explicitly:
Foo X = static_cast<Foo>(Orange + Red);


So I think this is not much weaker than Ada95, is it?
You think it's a major design flaw, I think this is (at worst) a minor one.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Pat Rogers]

"Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom> wrote in message
news:9jk0ep$cj1$1@norfair.nerim.net...
> > Try the other direction:
> >
> >     enum Foo { Red, Orange, Green };
> >
> >     enum Bar { Mon, Tue, Wed };
> >
> >     int X = Orange + Tue;
> >
> > which shows that they are really just ints.
> >
>
> As I pointed out before, this is not a real case error.
> If it accepted
> Foo X = Orange + Tue;
> it would be bad conception, for sure.
>
> But standard C++ doesn't even accept
> Foo X = Orange + Red;
> !!!
> So there's no way you make an non-intentional mistake, if you want to do
> such thing as arithmetics on enum, you have to write explicitly:
> Foo X = static_cast<Foo>(Orange + Red);
>
>
> So I think this is not much weaker than Ada95, is it?
> You think it's a major design flaw, I think this is (at worst) a minor
one.

No, a comparatively minor one.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3B586C51.53C17E25@home.com>, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG says...
>
>Hee, hee, but what are you going to do when you want to do a select(2) call
>on a dozen file descriptors? Java doesn't give you a clean way to do this,
>short of creating a dozen threads to each block on one descriptor. Or..
>you can use non-blocking (gak) calls. Java still falls short in a number 
>of places. Ada of course, would not prevent you from calling select(2) or
>poll(2). To do it in Java, requires the use of native methods, which would
>be oh so ugly (creation of a shared library etc. etc.)

That's funny. This very much resembles a conversation I had Friday with an
anti-Ada C user. Although Ada's on the other side this time, I feel honor bound
to make the same points here that I did there.

1) I don't see why it is such a bad thing to make a system call from Java, and
not a bad thing to make the exact same system call from Ada. I realise that this
may reduce Java's portability, but only down to the level at which your putative
Ada example already exists. Your Ada (or Java) might be less portable for other
reasons. But then those should be addressed, not this issue.

2) Even though either language can do it just fine, I don't think "select"
support is that big of a deal anyway. Most serious network servers (according to
the literature I read) don't use select. They instead keep a pool of threads
(tasks), and assign IP connections as they come in to the next available thread.
Using "select" would tie up your entire server into processing one request at a
time, which might be OK for something that doesn't get hit a lot, but would be
horrible for a server that may expect several simultanious requests from
different parties. "select" probably has its uses, but it seems to mostly be a
holdover from the pre-thread era.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Ted Dennison wrote:
>2) Even though either language can do it just fine, I don't think "select"
>support is that big of a deal anyway. Most serious network servers
>(according to the literature I read) don't use select. They instead keep a
>pool of threads (tasks), and assign IP connections as they come in to the
>next available thread.

Ack.

>Using "select" would tie up your entire server into processing one request
>at a time, which might be OK for something that doesn't get hit a lot, but
>would be horrible for a server that may expect several simultanious
>requests from different parties. "select" probably has its uses, but it
>seems to mostly be a holdover from the pre-thread era.

Teergrubing requires select or poll to prevent a dDoS.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9j98pv$20vi$1@norfair.nerim.net>, Bertrand Augereau says...
>
>I think if Ada software is better/cheaper to maintain, it is because more
>qualified people produce it and that's it.

That's certianly not what either of 2 seperate studies found wrt. Ada and C. The
Rational study found had personnel information available and found that the more
productive Ada code was *not* a result of the personnel used. The
SUNY-Plattsburgh study used undergrad students in a particular course, so the
only way you could make that claim would be to claim that students suddenly got
smarter the year that Ada was introduced (and stayed that way).

You could claim that C++ will indeed have no difference here because it is
better than C. But is it better enough? Is it better in all the important
places? The author of the Rational study suspected not (and said so right in the
study), but who knows for sure?

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <slrn9lra55.hk.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>, Lutz Donnerhacke says...
>
>* Ted Dennison wrote:
>>2) Even though either language can do it just fine, I don't think "select"
>>support is that big of a deal anyway. Most serious network servers

>Teergrubing requires select or poll to prevent a dDoS.

I went and read up on this (and an interesting trick it is, too). The idea
generally seems to be that you use the SMTP protocol to trick the client into
keeping his connection open indefinitely once you determine that he is a
spammer. Then you can call his ISP and get his account yanked, or whatever. Its
sort of like stalling a credit-card thief at the checkout counter until the cops
arrive. :-)

It looks like the issue here is that someone could get annoyed that you are
doing this to him, and just start establishing tons of connections until you
can't accept any more, thus preventing use by real users. However, it still
seems debatable whether this is needed or not. The teergrubing FAQ implies not,
but it does appear that some folks writing mail transport agents have been
worried enough about it to go ahead and use "select" in a single thread. 

Personally, I don't see where using a single thread with a limited number of
possible connections is that different, unless you don't have a limit on the
number of connection-servicing tasks (which would seem dangerous to start with).
There's still a resource limit: A DDoS-dork could use up all your connections
either way.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
> In article <3B586C51.53C17E25@home.com>, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG says...
> >
> >Hee, hee, but what are you going to do when you want to do a select(2) call
> >on a dozen file descriptors? Java doesn't give you a clean way to do this,
> >short of creating a dozen threads to each block on one descriptor. Or..
> >you can use non-blocking (gak) calls. Java still falls short in a number
> >of places. Ada of course, would not prevent you from calling select(2) or
> >poll(2). To do it in Java, requires the use of native methods, which would
> >be oh so ugly (creation of a shared library etc. etc.)
> 
> That's funny. This very much resembles a conversation I had Friday with an
> anti-Ada C user. Although Ada's on the other side this time, I feel honor bound
> to make the same points here that I did there.
> 
> 1) I don't see why it is such a bad thing to make a system call from Java, and
> not a bad thing to make the exact same system call from Ada. I realise that this
> may reduce Java's portability, but only down to the level at which your putative
> Ada example already exists. Your Ada (or Java) might be less portable for other
> reasons. But then those should be addressed, not this issue.

My point was primarily these two points:

  1. to do native calls in Java requires you to create a shared library, install
     that library, establish environment if necessary (SHLIB_PATH/LD_LIBRARY_PATH)
     etc. Conversely, with Ada, you simply insert pragma import, then link-- no
     muss, no fuss.

  2. The other point was that creating extra threads might be considered a heavy
     handed solution to the problem (depending upon application). I know someone
     who has had to deal with this very problem, and bemoans the lack of select/poll
     support.
     
And of course, there is the whole DOS scenario, which someone else covered.

> 2) Even though either language can do it just fine, I don't think "select"
> support is that big of a deal anyway. Most serious network servers (according to
> the literature I read) don't use select. They instead keep a pool of threads
> (tasks), and assign IP connections as they come in to the next available thread.
> Using "select" would tie up your entire server into processing one request at a
> time, which might be OK for something that doesn't get hit a lot, but would be
> horrible for a server that may expect several simultanious requests from
> different parties. "select" probably has its uses, but it seems to mostly be a
> holdover from the pre-thread era.

Failing native calls to select/poll, Java forces you to use one thread for
each socket/fd that you are waiting for events on. What may be a better approach
for some server designs, is a pool of threads (yes), but not as many as you have
fd/sockets for. Once an event has been registered for any of many many file
descriptors (from select say), you can then pass the "job" onto one of your
waiting server threads. This allows you to tune the resource requirements of
your server.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Florian Weimer]

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> "select" probably has its uses, but it seems to mostly be a
> holdover from the pre-thread era.

select() (and poll()) are close to necessary if you want to establish
two-way communication with a child process.  Of course, you could
create a bunch of tasks for that, but this seems to be pure overkill.

OTOH, I havent seen a proper thick binding for select() and poll()
(using protected objects, so that you can use Ada select to wait for
events). With a thin binding, SUSv2 select() and Ada select do not mix
at all.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[tmoran]

>OTOH, I havent seen a proper thick binding for select() and poll()
>(using protected objects, so that you can use Ada select to wait for
>events).
  Under Windows, Claw.Sockets.Non_Blocking calls overidable primitive
operations like When_Connect, When_Readable, etc when selected
events occur.  Your overide could proceed to call a task or
protected entry if desired.  One advantage is that child overides
could do different things than their parents.  It's not obvious to
me how you could get similar flexibility by having the thick
binding call specific entrys.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David Bolen]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:

> The www.adaic.org site is a starting place. See:
> 
>     http://www.adaic.org/intro/c.html
> 
> I am sure that others in this ng can give additional references, and in
> some cases testimonials ;-)

Not to derail the better language discussion, but I'm not a current
Ada user and have been lurking for a bit here following the various
URLs and what not, and I was curious about one thing I noticed.

I can't help but be struck by the fact that in almost all cases
(clearly there were a few exceptions), the various documents and
comparisions, and studies, and even some FAQs that I'm able to track
down all seem to be years old at this point (some over 5 years).

The above URL is a good example.  The topmost entry on the above
referenced page (with a banner of "NEW") is from early 1998.  Nothing
in the news but a few conferences were later than 1999 and the current
issue of AdaIC news is Fall of 1997.  And that seems more the rule
than the exception from my browsing.  I've also hit more stray/broken
links on the Ada pages than I've seen in a long time.

Now clearly there doesn't have to be any strong correlation between
such information and the language's viability itself, nor am I trying
to read too much into it, but I couldn't help but notice it, and it
just seemed strange that I didn't find more active, and more
importantly, recent, bits of information.

Given that posters here clearly find use of the language in current,
commercial (not just military although that's obviously still true)
environments, is it just a poor net-presence language, or lack of
interest, or am I just looking in the wrong places?

Thanks.

--
-- David
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \               David Bolen            \   E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com  /
  |             FitLinxx, Inc.            \  Phone: (203) 708-5192    |
 /  860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT  06902   \  Fax: (203) 316-5150     \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

In article <hJh77.5332$ar1.14495@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison wrote:
> 2) Even though either language can do it just fine, I don't think "select"
> support is that big of a deal anyway. Most serious network servers (according to
> the literature I read) don't use select. They instead keep a pool of threads
> (tasks), and assign IP connections as they come in to the next available thread.
> Using "select" would tie up your entire server into processing one request at a
> time, which might be OK for something that doesn't get hit a lot, but would be
> horrible for a server that may expect several simultanious requests from
> different parties. "select" probably has its uses, but it seems to mostly be a
> holdover from the pre-thread era.

I must disagree with you now.
You can and should use select() in all threads with wake-one.
This saves you a lot of context-switches compared to connection queses,
and that's a big win, at least on intel handware.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Florian Weimer]

tmoran@acm.org writes:

>>OTOH, I havent seen a proper thick binding for select() and poll()
>>(using protected objects, so that you can use Ada select to wait for
>>events).

>   Under Windows, Claw.Sockets.Non_Blocking calls overidable primitive
> operations like When_Connect, When_Readable, etc when selected
> events occur.  Your overide could proceed to call a task or
> protected entry if desired.

This requires an additional task, doesn't it?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[tmoran]

> >   Under Windows, Claw.Sockets.Non_Blocking calls overidable primitive
> > operations like When_Connect, When_Readable, etc when selected
> > events occur.  Your overide could proceed to call a task or
> > protected entry if desired.
>
> This requires an additional task, doesn't it?
  One task to run the window's message loop and call When_Connect et al,
and another task if When_Connect can't handle the event entirely, or
rapidly, by itself.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

"[..]

If it ports among Unices, it's portable.
[..]"

and

"[..]
Unices are the only family of OSes that have real standards,
followed by many OSes."

There used not be Unices. There was the one UNIX. AT&T let vendors
change the source code for their distributions and there were
Unices. You are wrong on this about portability: the family
you mention is a group of near identikit OSes which for
portability now need recompiling (instead of being binary
compatible, when on same processor, as the earlier incarnation
as a single OS).

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lutz Donnerhacke]

* Ted Dennison wrote:
>It looks like the issue here is that someone could get annoyed that you are
>doing this to him, and just start establishing tons of connections until you
>can't accept any more, thus preventing use by real users.

That's not the problem.

>However, it still seems debatable whether this is needed or not. The
>teergrubing FAQ implies not, but it does appear that some folks writing
>mail transport agents have been worried enough about it to go ahead and
>use "select" in a single thread.

The real problem is to keep a lot of spammers online for a long time in
order to steal them ressources. It would be mad to kill yourself in the same
way (by using threads).

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

David Bolen <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote in message news:<u1yn5kgv0.fsf@ctwd0143.fitlinxx.com>...

I too found the 5 year old data to be non interesting and not convincing.

I too found many broken links.




> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:
> 
> > The www.adaic.org site is a starting place. See:
> > 
> >     http://www.adaic.org/intro/c.html
> > 
> > I am sure that others in this ng can give additional references, and in
> > some cases testimonials ;-)
> 
> Not to derail the better language discussion, but I'm not a current
> Ada user and have been lurking for a bit here following the various
> URLs and what not, and I was curious about one thing I noticed.
> 
> I can't help but be struck by the fact that in almost all cases
> (clearly there were a few exceptions), the various documents and
> comparisions, and studies, and even some FAQs that I'm able to track
> down all seem to be years old at this point (some over 5 years).
> 
> The above URL is a good example.  The topmost entry on the above
> referenced page (with a banner of "NEW") is from early 1998.  Nothing
> in the news but a few conferences were later than 1999 and the current
> issue of AdaIC news is Fall of 1997.  And that seems more the rule
> than the exception from my browsing.  I've also hit more stray/broken
> links on the Ada pages than I've seen in a long time.
> 
> Now clearly there doesn't have to be any strong correlation between
> such information and the language's viability itself, nor am I trying
> to read too much into it, but I couldn't help but notice it, and it
> just seemed strange that I didn't find more active, and more
> importantly, recent, bits of information.
> 
> Given that posters here clearly find use of the language in current,
> commercial (not just military although that's obviously still true)
> environments, is it just a poor net-presence language, or lack of
> interest, or am I just looking in the wrong places?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> -- David

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> 
> > "select" probably has its uses, but it seems to mostly be a
> > holdover from the pre-thread era.
> 
> select() (and poll()) are close to necessary if you want to establish
> two-way communication with a child process.  Of course, you could
> create a bunch of tasks for that, but this seems to be pure overkill.
> 
> OTOH, I havent seen a proper thick binding for select() and poll()
> (using protected objects, so that you can use Ada select to wait for
> events). With a thin binding, SUSv2 select() and Ada select do not mix
> at all.

I think you'll find that poll(2) can be interfaced to from Ada without
much trouble. The select(2) interfaces is problematic to Ada because
select(2) requires those FDSET macros, which are convenient only
in C/C++. The poll(2) interface OTOH, requires you to only set up arrays.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

codesavvy wrote:
> David Bolen <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote in message news:<u1yn5kgv0.fsf@ctwd0143.fitlinxx.com>...
> 
> I too found the 5 year old data to be non interesting and not convincing.
> 
> I too found many broken links.

It is true that there are some busted links, and old data around.

Others have responded to most of these issues, and I would just like to
add the following points to consider:

  1. As others have pointed out, since the language hasn't changed since '95,
     and so the "Ada side of the equation" has not either.

  2. What has changed since '95 is C and C++. However, I suspect that many
     here have little interest in keeping up documents about "those changes", 
     though it might be useful for winning "converts".  ;-)

  3. As far as company testimonials go, others have already pointed to 
     reasons why companies are reluctant to talk about their use of Ada.
     Some of these reasons include:

     i)   Head hunter "pillaging" of Ada programmers.  In our area, they
          are very hard to find.

     ii)  Ada is not seen as a conventional choice (advertising it's use
          may bring upon a need to support this decision internally.)

     iii) Companies may consider it "private business" -- getting such
          public endorsements approved internally, are not often worth
          the effort (you'd have to go to great lengths to explain to them
          what Ada was, let alone why the co. should list it in a public
          document).

I suppose another good reason is that the Ada comunity is probably smaller,
so there are fewer volunteers that are willing to spend time on "documentation
issues", like FAQs. Although I think a Ada language FAQ would be a good idea.

Finally, studies of the type you are looking for are expensive, time consuming,
and take years. They also need to be "controlled" so that the comparison is
meaningful. This is difficult to do unless someone has the funding to do the
same work 2 different ways!

However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere, is doing a
comparison study to C++ right now. If so, it may take a few more years before 
we'll see the results of those studies. If not, oh well..

Warren.

> > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:
> >
> > > The www.adaic.org site is a starting place. See:
> > >
> > >     http://www.adaic.org/intro/c.html
> > >
> > > I am sure that others in this ng can give additional references, and in
> > > some cases testimonials ;-)
> >
> > Not to derail the better language discussion, but I'm not a current
> > Ada user and have been lurking for a bit here following the various
> > URLs and what not, and I was curious about one thing I noticed.
> >
> > I can't help but be struck by the fact that in almost all cases
> > (clearly there were a few exceptions), the various documents and
> > comparisions, and studies, and even some FAQs that I'm able to track
> > down all seem to be years old at this point (some over 5 years).
> >
> > The above URL is a good example.  The topmost entry on the above
> > referenced page (with a banner of "NEW") is from early 1998.  Nothing
> > in the news but a few conferences were later than 1999 and the current
> > issue of AdaIC news is Fall of 1997.  And that seems more the rule
> > than the exception from my browsing.  I've also hit more stray/broken
> > links on the Ada pages than I've seen in a long time.
> >
> > Now clearly there doesn't have to be any strong correlation between
> > such information and the language's viability itself, nor am I trying
> > to read too much into it, but I couldn't help but notice it, and it
> > just seemed strange that I didn't find more active, and more
> > importantly, recent, bits of information.
> >
> > Given that posters here clearly find use of the language in current,
> > commercial (not just military although that's obviously still true)
> > environments, is it just a poor net-presence language, or lack of
> > interest, or am I just looking in the wrong places?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > -- David

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[tmoran]

>I too found the 5 year old data to be non interesting and not convincing.
>
 >I too found many broken links.
  I understand the adaic site is presently being moved and updated,
so it isn't looking its best right now.  As has been pointed out,
adahome maintenance ceased a couple of years ago and, although it
has lots of archival stuff, new things are largely going to
www.adapower.com
  At a quick count, www.adapower.com has 1500 distinct URLs, about
30 of which lead to an error 404.  About 1100 of those URLs are on
the www.adapower.com site itself, 750 dated 1996 ..  1999, and about
250 each from 2000 and (so far in) 2001.  Considering that the site
is maintained by one unpaid guy in his spare time, that's rather good.
  I'd be eager to test my statistics gatherer (written in Ada of course)
against some C++ sites, can you suggest some?

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Florian Weimer]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:

>> OTOH, I havent seen a proper thick binding for select() and poll()
>> (using protected objects, so that you can use Ada select to wait for
>> events). With a thin binding, SUSv2 select() and Ada select do not mix
>> at all.
> 
> I think you'll find that poll(2) can be interfaced to from Ada without
> much trouble.

If you call poll(), your task blocks.  This is not always desirable;
for example, sometimes you want to respond to entry calls even if
you're waiting on some file descriptor.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy]

I would love to see Ada more widely adopted and/or the demand increase
for Ada developers.  The case has to be made to management not me.  My
question is, "Is the case for Ada being made effectively?"

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B5EEE13.BD2B0E4F@home.com>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > David Bolen <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote in message news:<u1yn5kgv0.fsf@ctwd0143.fitlinxx.com>...
> > 
> > I too found the 5 year old data to be non interesting and not convincing.
> > 
> > I too found many broken links.
> 
> It is true that there are some busted links, and old data around.
> 
> Others have responded to most of these issues, and I would just like to
> add the following points to consider:
> 
>   1. As others have pointed out, since the language hasn't changed since '95,
>      and so the "Ada side of the equation" has not either.
> 
>   2. What has changed since '95 is C and C++. However, I suspect that many
>      here have little interest in keeping up documents about "those changes", 
>      though it might be useful for winning "converts".  ;-)
> 
>   3. As far as company testimonials go, others have already pointed to 
>      reasons why companies are reluctant to talk about their use of Ada.
>      Some of these reasons include:
> 
>      i)   Head hunter "pillaging" of Ada programmers.  In our area, they
>           are very hard to find.
> 
>      ii)  Ada is not seen as a conventional choice (advertising it's use
>           may bring upon a need to support this decision internally.)
> 
>      iii) Companies may consider it "private business" -- getting such
>           public endorsements approved internally, are not often worth
>           the effort (you'd have to go to great lengths to explain to them
>           what Ada was, let alone why the co. should list it in a public
>           document).
> 
> I suppose another good reason is that the Ada comunity is probably smaller,
> so there are fewer volunteers that are willing to spend time on "documentation
> issues", like FAQs. Although I think a Ada language FAQ would be a good idea.
> 
> Finally, studies of the type you are looking for are expensive, time consuming,
> and take years. They also need to be "controlled" so that the comparison is
> meaningful. This is difficult to do unless someone has the funding to do the
> same work 2 different ways!
> 
> However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere, is doing a
> comparison study to C++ right now. If so, it may take a few more years before 
> we'll see the results of those studies. If not, oh well..
> 
> Warren.
> 
> > > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > The www.adaic.org site is a starting place. See:
> > > >
> > > >     http://www.adaic.org/intro/c.html
> > > >
> > > > I am sure that others in this ng can give additional references, and in
> > > > some cases testimonials ;-)
> > >
> > > Not to derail the better language discussion, but I'm not a current
> > > Ada user and have been lurking for a bit here following the various
> > > URLs and what not, and I was curious about one thing I noticed.
> > >
> > > I can't help but be struck by the fact that in almost all cases
> > > (clearly there were a few exceptions), the various documents and
> > > comparisions, and studies, and even some FAQs that I'm able to track
> > > down all seem to be years old at this point (some over 5 years).
> > >
> > > The above URL is a good example.  The topmost entry on the above
> > > referenced page (with a banner of "NEW") is from early 1998.  Nothing
> > > in the news but a few conferences were later than 1999 and the current
> > > issue of AdaIC news is Fall of 1997.  And that seems more the rule
> > > than the exception from my browsing.  I've also hit more stray/broken
> > > links on the Ada pages than I've seen in a long time.
> > >
> > > Now clearly there doesn't have to be any strong correlation between
> > > such information and the language's viability itself, nor am I trying
> > > to read too much into it, but I couldn't help but notice it, and it
> > > just seemed strange that I didn't find more active, and more
> > > importantly, recent, bits of information.
> > >
> > > Given that posters here clearly find use of the language in current,
> > > commercial (not just military although that's obviously still true)
> > > environments, is it just a poor net-presence language, or lack of
> > > interest, or am I just looking in the wrong places?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- David

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lao Xiao Hai]

codesavvy wrote:

> Then Ada will be forever relegated to a fulfilling specific niches.  I
> believe you'll see more organizations switching from Ada to C++ rather
> than the other way around.

With the abrogation of the Ada "mandate" there was an exodus from the
safe haven of Ada to the wilderness of C++.   For many organizations,
there was a "grass is always greener" effect.   As this transition from
reliability to unreliability proceeded, a few intelligent managers realized,
once they fully understood the implications of C++, the folly of their
decision.   Those who are able to stop this silliness, are sticking
to Ada.  For others, the inexorable slide into spending more to produce
the same level of reliability they enjoyed with Ada has reached a point
of no return.   Those who have turned back will realize economic benefits
of their decision.   Those who have not will simply waste more DoD money.

It is interesting, also, to note that we are already hearing prophecies about
the death of C++.  One only need turn the page to comp.lang.C++.moderated
to note the presence of doomsayers.  Languages typically do not die off so
quickly.  We continue to have people maintaining Jovial, CMS-2, TACPOL,
COBOL-68, and other elderly languages.   The communications satellites,
as well as other vehicles programmed in Ada have a lifetime of upwards
of twenty years.  People will still be learning Ada to maintain that software
a long time from now.  The same will be true of C++.

Richard Riehle
AdaWorks Software Engineering
richard@adaworks.com

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Lao Xiao Hai]

ANH_VO@udlp.com wrote:

> Codesavvy, for a start, can a linked list be implemented in C++ without pointer?

Ahn,

Yes it can.  Well, yes it can if what you mean by a pointer is a raw pointer.
Sadly,
this is the kind of pointer most C++ programmers routinely use.   Ada raises the
level of abstraction and calls a pointer an access type (as Java calls it a
reference),
thereby hiding the dangerous aspects of indirection beneath a compiler-enforced
mechanism.  In the case of Ada, a pointer, AKA access type, is safe by default.  A
C++ pointer is unsafe, by default.   We can relax the safety features of an access
type through a variety of unchecked and library features.   In C++, we raise the
level of abstraction through the use of a "smart pointer" class.  This, in many
ways,
is equivalent to an access type, except it may have built-in garbage collection.
The
smart pointer restricts the set of operations on an object of its type in much the
same
way an access type does in Ada.

Unfortunately, most C++ programmers either do not understand how to use smart
pointers or regard them as "inefficient."    Also, few college professors know
enough
about them to properly teach their use in object-oriented programming classes.

Richard Riehle

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

The Ada IC doesn't appear to have much of a mission (or maybe even funding?)
since The Mandate got lifted. You can't really count on their page to be
up-to-date. The most maintained website for Ada information is probably
http://www.adapower.org/ Pages come and pages go - I don't know that it is
any different for any other languages. (Is there some sort of semi-official
website for C++, given that it isn't especially "owned" by anybody?) Links
break for a variety of reasons (my site appears to be down because the
hosting computer appears to belong to a dot-gone company.) so you probably
need to have a little patience with it.

I don't know of any other language that has nearly as much available
information WRT studies of productivity, error reduction, etc. The fact that
there are *any* studies of this concerning Ada, I find to be useful. I'd be
interested in seeing any other published studies that, for example, indicate
that C++ has a big productivity/defect advantage over C (or Fortran or
Cobol, or <insert language here>) (Maybe it isn't "fair" to demand of Ada
what isn't demanded of any other language on the planet. We claim Ada is
better & have some semi-scientific evidence to back that up. Do other
languages have a "No, Ada *isn't* better and here's my study to back it up!"
collection of resources?)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"David Bolen" <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote in message
news:u1yn5kgv0.fsf@ctwd0143.fitlinxx.com...
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:
>
> > The www.adaic.org site is a starting place. See:
> >
> >     http://www.adaic.org/intro/c.html
> >
> > I am sure that others in this ng can give additional references, and in
> > some cases testimonials ;-)
>
> Not to derail the better language discussion, but I'm not a current
> Ada user and have been lurking for a bit here following the various
> URLs and what not, and I was curious about one thing I noticed.
>
> I can't help but be struck by the fact that in almost all cases
> (clearly there were a few exceptions), the various documents and
> comparisions, and studies, and even some FAQs that I'm able to track
> down all seem to be years old at this point (some over 5 years).
>
> The above URL is a good example.  The topmost entry on the above
> referenced page (with a banner of "NEW") is from early 1998.  Nothing
> in the news but a few conferences were later than 1999 and the current
> issue of AdaIC news is Fall of 1997.  And that seems more the rule
> than the exception from my browsing.  I've also hit more stray/broken
> links on the Ada pages than I've seen in a long time.
>
> Now clearly there doesn't have to be any strong correlation between
> such information and the language's viability itself, nor am I trying
> to read too much into it, but I couldn't help but notice it, and it
> just seemed strange that I didn't find more active, and more
> importantly, recent, bits of information.
>
> Given that posters here clearly find use of the language in current,
> commercial (not just military although that's obviously still true)
> environments, is it just a poor net-presence language, or lack of
> interest, or am I just looking in the wrong places?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> -- David
> --
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
>  \               David Bolen            \   E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com  /
>   |             FitLinxx, Inc.            \  Phone: (203) 708-5192    |
>  /  860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT  06902   \  Fax: (203) 316-5150     \
> \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:
> 
> >> OTOH, I havent seen a proper thick binding for select() and poll()
> >> (using protected objects, so that you can use Ada select to wait for
> >> events). With a thin binding, SUSv2 select() and Ada select do not mix
> >> at all.
> >
> > I think you'll find that poll(2) can be interfaced to from Ada without
> > much trouble.
> 
> If you call poll(), your task blocks.  This is not always desirable;
> for example, sometimes you want to respond to entry calls even if
> you're waiting on some file descriptor.

But that is the whole point of select(2)/poll(2). Ie to block (or timeout)
until something interesting happens. 

If OTOH if you use poll(2) in a context where it doesn't make sense, then the
shame is on you-- not the system call.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

codesavvy wrote:
> I would love to see Ada more widely adopted and/or the demand increase
> for Ada developers.  The case has to be made to management not me.  My
> question is, "Is the case for Ada being made effectively?"

I guess my response is "By whom?" and "Probably not."

Part of the problem is that people still associate "Ada" with the
features of "Ada83" -- not the more modern Ada95. Given the age of
management, and the fact that the ones with tech experience got away
from it before 1995, will mean that this will be the norm.

The other stigma that still is attached seems to be "oh, isn't that the
language that the military use?" Or "wasn't that the language designed
by committee?"  Only education can overcome these biases.

I do believe that the fact that Ada is being increasingly used in Universities
means that more graduates will be entering the work force with a more
informed opinion of Ada. The freely available GNAT compiler also makes
it possible for people to get first hand experience with the language
without shelling out a fortune.  Both of these factors have been a
"relatively recent innovation", and so only time will tell if more
people manage to ride that bandwagon.

The other emerging factor may be the rise in Open Sourced/GPLed
projects written in Ada. More people will actually see Ada being
used, and if they want to recompile/modify it, they'll need to have
the GNAT compiler et al installed as well. Once it is on your system,
you might be more inclined to try it too ;-)

As far as convincing management -- that is where those of us who care
must be prepared to educate.  In some cases, like Linux/FreeBSD, you
can simply sneak it in the back door. After all, the pearl zealots
get away with this! ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Pascal Obry]

codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes:

> I would love to see Ada more widely adopted and/or the demand increase
> for Ada developers.  The case has to be made to management not me.  My

Sorry to disagree. This issue is an issue that anyone should care about not
only management. A manager, most of the time, take a decision to follow a path
or another by hearing inputs from his/her team. A manager is not some kind of
god and all decisions are taken from data/fealing/whatever... And here we have
a role to play. I hate hearing peoples, "well that's not my fault, I did not
take this decision it's my manager..." without fighting !

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Probably the important factors are not finding more productivity studies or
arguing the case with one's bosses/peers - although I doubt that hurts. My
guess is that a more important factor is/will be the availability of good
tools. Well, good tools decidedly already exist. Lets make that "good tools
integrated into a development kit".

We've heard here about lots of tools - compilers, tools for building GUIs
(GtkAda, Claw, Aonix,...) debuggers, editors, APIs (bindings to sockets, web
services, OS interfaces, etc.) Most of this stuff is free or at least cheap.
The problem is, it isn't all under one roof. That is in my mind one
important reason Ada doesn't get accepted where other languages are.
Especially by management. There is no integrated Ada solution, but there are
integrated C++, Java, etc. solutions.

Maybe some of this is in part due to Ada's portability. The emphasis is on
tools that can work anywhere and/or developers attempt to address all
platforms and all applications. Maybe if effort were concentrated on one
area with a goal of bringing up a single development kit (perhaps at least
not binding it so close to one platform that it can't possibly be portable)
this might be the skinny end of the wedge. Maybe its one seamless install
package for a Unix platform that goes head-to-head with Java - class
libraries & all. Maybe its one .ZIP file that provides everything you get
with MSVC++ and more. Maybe its an embedded development kit going from a PC
host to an SBC, complete with development board(s), cables, documents,
soup..nuts.

One thing I know it isn't is a bunch of disjointed tools that all look
different, don't work together seamlessly, come from 42 different web sites
and have to be downloaded, tweaked, compiled and coaxed into working at all.
No manager wants to dedicate one or more staff member's time to pulling
everything together, getting it to work at all and then maintaining it
in-house forever unless they have no choice. Guess what? There are choices
out there. There are integrated solutions out there and until Ada can
compete on an equal footing with them, it will forever remain an "Also Ran".

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B605258.3F12BBDD@home.com...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > I would love to see Ada more widely adopted and/or the demand increase
> > for Ada developers.  The case has to be made to management not me.  My
> > question is, "Is the case for Ada being made effectively?"
>
> I guess my response is "By whom?" and "Probably not."
>

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Probably the important factors are not finding more productivity studies or
> arguing the case with one's bosses/peers - although I doubt that hurts. My
> guess is that a more important factor is/will be the availability of good
> tools. Well, good tools decidedly already exist. Lets make that "good tools
> integrated into a development kit".

I'm not certain the "itegration" issue is that big a deal. Granted, it makes
purchasing/acquisition simpler. I think developers on Windows systems think
more along these lines, only because they are used to Microsoft/Borland etc.
bundling their products along these lines.

In the UNIX world however, I don't think this thinking is quite so mainstream.
After all, you want a compiler that fits your cost/reliability/conformance/
validation requirements. You choose your source control tools on the basis
of standards/company mandate/personal preference etc. You choose your editor
often on religious grounds. You choose your debugger on cost/productivity
basis maybe.

In short, you choose the set of tools that work best for you. Many use vi
in the UNIX world, for whatever reasons. Others use GNU emacs, or elvis.
I've personally always used a heavily customized version of MicroEMACS.
But within a group of UNIX developers, you are likely to find just as
many preferences ;-)

Having said all that, I do know that a large portion of these developers
like the IDE approach (if given the choice). I myself do not like them, 
but then, maybe I'm strange that way.

I find that the combination of my own modified editor,
custom tools, command line editing (emacs mode of course) etc., allow
me to be much more effective than any IDE has allowed me to be. Make files
do the rest.

Yet I grant that others do like IDEs, and perhaps perform better that
way.

I personally don't see this "integration matter" as the issue. Management 
doesn't argue against it at this level -- they site the cost of finding 
Ada developers, the fact that it is "unusual" or "not popular". They also 
site that we cannot train people on "Ada" because they themselves may not 
want to be in that area as a career choice. These are the types of issues 
I see and hear.  Rarely is the resistance based upon technical/packaging
details.

Just my $0.02 Cdn.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

Granted, the Unix world is somewhat different from the Windows world, but
not *so* different that it doesn't count to have an integrated set of tools.
The *specifics* of *what* tools get integrated may be debatable, but I think
that developers on Unix still would want better integration than they get
from Ada currently. Look at what you get with Java from Sun (used to get?)
and you see more than just a command-line compiler and references to other
tools that might be used. They provide class libraries to get all kinds of
work done under Unix as well as tools for helping you build your app beyond
just a compiler.

There are, of course, other factors that create resistance on the part of
developers & managers toward adopting Ada. Some of those you can't possibly
overcome from the outside - they require a change of heart from within. But
I believe that if there were more spiffy development environments that
matched & exceeded what is available for other languages, this would remove
*lots* of existing barriers. Developers may just start to play with the IDE
out of curiosity to see if it is at all better than what they are currently
using. They might see some additional tools that don't exist on their
platforms now that might make development easier, more fun, more leveraged,
etc. They may not initially *like* Ada, but they might begin to adapt to it
if the IDE offered them some significant advantages over what they have.

Beyond an editor, GUI builder & debugger, what sort of things might make the
IDE more attractive? Perhaps someone works up a model for developing apps
and does a whole pile of code generation for the user based on asking
questions and filling in the blanks on a "wizard-like" interaction? Maybe
the interfaces are so clean, easy to understand, intuitively obvious & well
documented that it makes getting an app up and running a snap in comparison
to other tools? Maybe there is a class library that provides lots of easy to
use & well documented data structures, math libraries, OS interfaces, etc.
that the higher level of abstraction possible in Ada gets to shine &
everyone is amazed with how far they get in such a short development time?
Lots of things might contribute to making an Ada IDE more attractive than
equivalent C++ or Java tools...

Its just an idea that I keep spitballing around. I'm tinkering right now
with some things I think might work toward that end, but there's just
little-old-me hammering away at it in my spare time hoping to get something
that might pay off. Its really something that would take a well financed
company or a bunch of dedicated hobyists working together to do right.
Still, I'm convinced that it is a necessary condition to becoming a bigtime
player...

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B607BC0.B1233965@home.com...
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> > Probably the important factors are not finding more productivity studies
or
> > arguing the case with one's bosses/peers - although I doubt that hurts.
My
> > guess is that a more important factor is/will be the availability of
good
> > tools. Well, good tools decidedly already exist. Lets make that "good
tools
> > integrated into a development kit".
>
> I'm not certain the "itegration" issue is that big a deal. Granted, it
makes
> purchasing/acquisition simpler. I think developers on Windows systems
think
> more along these lines, only because they are used to Microsoft/Borland
etc.
> bundling their products along these lines.
>
> In the UNIX world however, I don't think this thinking is quite so
mainstream.
> After all, you want a compiler that fits your
cost/reliability/conformance/
> validation requirements. You choose your source control tools on the basis
> of standards/company mandate/personal preference etc. You choose your
editor
> often on religious grounds. You choose your debugger on cost/productivity
> basis maybe.
>
> In short, you choose the set of tools that work best for you. Many use vi
> in the UNIX world, for whatever reasons. Others use GNU emacs, or elvis.
> I've personally always used a heavily customized version of MicroEMACS.
> But within a group of UNIX developers, you are likely to find just as
> many preferences ;-)
>
> Having said all that, I do know that a large portion of these developers
> like the IDE approach (if given the choice). I myself do not like them,
> but then, maybe I'm strange that way.
>
> I find that the combination of my own modified editor,
> custom tools, command line editing (emacs mode of course) etc., allow
> me to be much more effective than any IDE has allowed me to be. Make files
> do the rest.
>
> Yet I grant that others do like IDEs, and perhaps perform better that
> way.
>
> I personally don't see this "integration matter" as the issue. Management
> doesn't argue against it at this level -- they site the cost of finding
> Ada developers, the fact that it is "unusual" or "not popular". They also
> site that we cannot train people on "Ada" because they themselves may not
> want to be in that area as a career choice. These are the types of issues
> I see and hear.  Rarely is the resistance based upon technical/packaging
> details.
>
> Just my $0.02 Cdn.
>
> --
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
> http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Florian Weimer]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:

> If OTOH if you use poll(2) in a context where it doesn't make sense,
> then the shame is on you-- not the system call.

If this is the only interface which is provided by the system in this
context, so it makes some sense to point at deficiencies.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Elmore]

Bertrand Augereau wrote:
> 
> The major flaw of C++ is inheriting for C but I love the non-verbose syntax.

Then you should be in awestruck rapture with J. :-)
	http://www.jsoftware.com

Larry

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David Bolen]

tmoran@acm.org writes:

>   At a quick count, www.adapower.com has 1500 distinct URLs, about
> 30 of which lead to an error 404.  About 1100 of those URLs are on
> the www.adapower.com site itself, 750 dated 1996 ..  1999, and about
> 250 each from 2000 and (so far in) 2001.  Considering that the site
> is maintained by one unpaid guy in his spare time, that's rather good.
>   I'd be eager to test my statistics gatherer (written in Ada of course)
> against some C++ sites, can you suggest some?

It's interesting that I've seen just about all responses wondering
about equivalent sites for C++ when I didn't even mention any specific
language in my initial post.  I guess it's clear who's in Ada's
sights, eh?  :-)

I don't actually have any C++ URLs handy since that's not one of the
languages I've been perusing recently.  And my original question was
really spurred by my own impressions formed as I was browsing through
Ada related sites.  It's not so much a capabilities comparison as a
"feel" for the community.  It's obviously a biased sample set, since
it's net-centric, so as I mentioned, I'm not implying that I
necessarily read too much into it.

But for other languages that I've researched recently (and thus would
have contributed to my mindset) how about:

    Python    (http://www.python.org)
    Eiffel    (http://www.eiffel.com)
    OCaml     (http://www.ocaml.org)
    Ruby      (http://www.ruby-lang.org/en)
    Haskell   (http://www.haskell.org)

Or even more niche languages such as

    Lua     (http://www.lua.org)
    PHP     (http://www.php.net/)

which while certainly not at all directly comparable to languages like
Ada, tended to feel more "alive" in terms of net-presence.

Note that these are only offered to help in testing your statistics
gatherer - I have absolutely no wish to fan the fires of any
inter-language wars :-)

(Is the source to your gatherer available?)

--
-- David
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \               David Bolen            \   E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com  /
  |             FitLinxx, Inc.            \  Phone: (203) 708-5192    |
 /  860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT  06902   \  Fax: (203) 316-5150     \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Gary Scott]

My Fortran site (around 1200 links) gets about 5000 hits/month.  Not bad
for a personal home page with no advertising (although I get requests
from vendors on occasion, I put the ads in for free but on a separate
page for ads).  A dedicated nerd (nut/wacko) can do a lot in his "spare"
time...

David Bolen wrote:
> 
> tmoran@acm.org writes:
> 
> >   At a quick count, www.adapower.com has 1500 distinct URLs, about
> > 30 of which lead to an error 404.  About 1100 of those URLs are on
> > the www.adapower.com site itself, 750 dated 1996 ..  1999, and about
> > 250 each from 2000 and (so far in) 2001.  Considering that the site
> > is maintained by one unpaid guy in his spare time, that's rather good.
> >   I'd be eager to test my statistics gatherer (written in Ada of course)
> > against some C++ sites, can you suggest some?
> 
> It's interesting that I've seen just about all responses wondering
> about equivalent sites for C++ when I didn't even mention any specific
> language in my initial post.  I guess it's clear who's in Ada's
> sights, eh?  :-)
> 
> I don't actually have any C++ URLs handy since that's not one of the
> languages I've been perusing recently.  And my original question was
> really spurred by my own impressions formed as I was browsing through
> Ada related sites.  It's not so much a capabilities comparison as a
> "feel" for the community.  It's obviously a biased sample set, since
> it's net-centric, so as I mentioned, I'm not implying that I
> necessarily read too much into it.
> 
> But for other languages that I've researched recently (and thus would
> have contributed to my mindset) how about:
> 
>     Python    (http://www.python.org)
>     Eiffel    (http://www.eiffel.com)
>     OCaml     (http://www.ocaml.org)
>     Ruby      (http://www.ruby-lang.org/en)
>     Haskell   (http://www.haskell.org)
> 
> Or even more niche languages such as
> 
>     Lua     (http://www.lua.org)
>     PHP     (http://www.php.net/)
> 
> which while certainly not at all directly comparable to languages like
> Ada, tended to feel more "alive" in terms of net-presence.
> 
> Note that these are only offered to help in testing your statistics
> gatherer - I have absolutely no wish to fan the fires of any
> inter-language wars :-)
> 
> (Is the source to your gatherer available?)
> 
> --
> -- David
> --
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
>  \               David Bolen            \   E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com  /
>   |             FitLinxx, Inc.            \  Phone: (203) 708-5192    |
>  /  860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT  06902   \  Fax: (203) 316-5150     \
> \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/


-- 

Gary Scott
mailto:scottg@flash.net

mailto:webmaster@fortranlib.com
http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the GNU Fortran G95 Project:  http://g95.sourceforge.net

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Ted:

> In article <mailman.995950476.32432.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>, Robert C. Leif,
> Ph.D. says...
> >One way to obtain funding for this type of study is to include gender as a
> >variable. If we can prove that the C class of languages are sexist, we have
> >got it made. I would not be surprised if this were true.
> 
> Heck, while we're at it, let's call C racist, homophobic, and anti-semetic too.
> :-)

:-(

> I searched in vain for the smilely face on this paragraph. I guess you just
> forgot to put it in. There's no way you could be serious.

I don't know if Robert was serious or not, but experimental
evidence from experiments in Danish schools support the
idea. Basically the _general_ difference between how boys
and girls approach problem solving can be described as "try
and see what happens" vs. "solid engineering". This
difference has a certain resemblance to the difference
between C and Ada.

This is not fun, and may have more to do with how kids are
raised than with actual gender differences, but it is so.

Jacob
-- 
"Alle telnet-d�moner b�r aflives"

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

If you look at who the "Major" players are in computer languages, you tend
to see a lot of C/C++ & Java for most problem domains. (We could start a
whole debate about how to determine the most "popular" computer languages
are - its been done here before. Job postings are some indication, but are
debatable as an accurate indicator...) Since we Ada-philes want to see our
pet language become one of the "Majors" so we can spend time working in the
language we enjoy the most, we tend to target things like C++ and Java.
(Maybe Ada is a Java wannabe? Or more like C#? :-) C++ apps tend to be the
kinds of things that Ada would excel at and C++ is probably the easiest to
criticize, so it gets viewed as the major competitor and cited most often as
being "The Other Guys".

I think Ada is well positioned to take over the C++ slot if a few things
come together. People are beginning to be disilusioned with C++ and see many
of the weaknesses it has. They're searching for an alternative (Java, C#?)
but not necessarily settling on anything yet. (Java had a quick blossom
because of the incredible marketing effort by Sun, but it too is begining to
show weaknesses in some areas, so people are still shopping.) Ada solves a
lot of the problems that C++ has while fitting nicely into the kinds of apps
that C++ is used for. If the right pieces come together for Ada and the
right attention is grabbed, it could become a major player too. It would
certainly help to get Ada adopted in a couple of major, high-visibility
projects!

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"David Bolen" <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote in message
news:usnfjus2m.fsf@ctwd0143.fitlinxx.com...
>
> It's interesting that I've seen just about all responses wondering
> about equivalent sites for C++ when I didn't even mention any specific
> language in my initial post.  I guess it's clear who's in Ada's
> sights, eh?  :-)
>

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Beard, Frank]

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@home.com]

> I'm not certain the "itegration" issue is that big a deal. Granted, it
makes
> purchasing/acquisition simpler. I think developers on Windows systems
think
> more along these lines, only because they are used to Microsoft/Borland
etc.
> bundling their products along these lines.

As a former VAX and Unix developer, I think along those lines.  Maybe
it's because I'm currently a Windows developer, but I could have sworn
I was thinking that way before I moved over. ;-)

> In the UNIX world however, I don't think this thinking is quite so
mainstream.
> After all, you want a compiler that fits your
cost/reliability/conformance/
> validation requirements. You choose your source control tools on the basis
> of standards/company mandate/personal preference etc. You choose your
editor
> often on religious grounds. You choose your debugger on cost/productivity
> basis maybe.

Yes, but a complete bundled package sure would be nice, especially for 
students, novices, and beginners.

> In short, you choose the set of tools that work best for you. Many use vi
> in the UNIX world, for whatever reasons. Others use GNU emacs, or elvis.
> I've personally always used a heavily customized version of MicroEMACS.
> But within a group of UNIX developers, you are likely to find just as
> many preferences ;-)

Well, maybe if your choice of tools could be easily substituted it would
be more appealing to you.  But if the bundle was complete and cost 
effective enough, it might not even be an issue.

> Having said all that, I do know that a large portion of these developers
> like the IDE approach (if given the choice). I myself do not like them, 
> but then, maybe I'm strange that way.

Well, since you use Ada, I'll still talk to you. ;-)

> I find that the combination of my own modified editor,
> custom tools, command line editing (emacs mode of course) etc., allow
> me to be much more effective than any IDE has allowed me to be. Make files
> do the rest.

I just don't like the functionality being so disjoint.  I prefer an
all-in-one tool that automates many things for me in a default kind
of way.  If I need something special, there is usually a way to change
the default.

I started out in the DEC VAX environment and using their LSE editor,
eventually.  Then I got pulled into the Unix environment using vi
(kicking and screaming - about vi).  Then I found Emacs, which was
a huge improvement over vi.  Then I worked on various flavors of
Unix.  Inevitably, I would end up on a Unix that didn't have an
available Emacs.  Here we go back into vi (kicking and screaming),
or try a native GUI editor.  Usually the native editor wasn't bad
but certainly didn't exist anywhere else.  Fortunately, they were
usually very similar to the GUI editors on other flavors.  Then I
ended up on Windows.  Moving between a word processor, spreadsheet,
IDE development environment, or just about any other GUI app,
regardless of vendor, is nearly seamless.  One reason we chose
Aonix ObjectAda was because of it's ease of use and similarity to
VC++ and Delphi.  Another think I like about Aonix is the ability
to create a project (similar to most of the other Windows tools)
and specify which files belong to the project.  They can be in 
various directories, or I can pick out which ones I want in a 
particular directory, or click "Add All".  And I don't have to
worry about the external name versus the internal name.  By that
I mean you don't care what the file extension is.  It can be
My_File.Shazbot, and the IDE won't care so long as the source
code in the file compiles.  Out of shear sanity, you want to
keep the filename the same as the internal source code, though
the IDE doesn't require it.  Anyway, enough of that.  I don't 
want to start and IDE versus Emacs flame again.  I've been on
Emacs.  Yes, it's powerful, but I don't want to go back.  No
other tools look like it (for bettor or worse, and no matter how
inferior they are to Emacs).

> Yet I grant that others do like IDEs, and perhaps perform better that
> way.

I seem to.

> I personally don't see this "integration matter" as the issue. Management 
> doesn't argue against it at this level -- they site the cost of finding 
> Ada developers, the fact that it is "unusual" or "not popular". They also 
> site that we cannot train people on "Ada" because they themselves may not 
> want to be in that area as a career choice. These are the types of issues 
> I see and hear.  Rarely is the resistance based upon technical/packaging
> details.

While I understand what you're saying, having come from a similar
background, I think the lack of a complete/integrated environment
is exactly the reason you have the shortage of Ada developers.  I
like Marin's idea of the "Red Hat" approach to bundling a complete
and powerful environment.  If someone had the time and inclination,
they could bundle a package for Unix and one for Windows that
contained something like (forgive me if I get the tools confused):

- GtkAda
- GLIDE
- GLADE
- ODBC bindings
- a database
- COM/DCOM
- CORBA
- etc (whatever I'm forgetting)
- documentation and examples

I think it would make an incredible difference.  Being one of those
that like the IDE approach, I see it all the time in the Windows
environment.  You can't tell me so many migrated to Windows because
they like Bill Gates and just want to make him rich.  I have no desire
to start an OS flame, but Windows is much simpler for the end user and
for the developer for general applications.  Just look at the suite of
tools available from Micro$oft & Borland (Inprise).  Every time our
Delphi people want to implement something there is already and API or
interface available in the tool.  All they have to do is call it.  I'm
just amazed how fast those guys can crank things out.  I want to be
able to do that in Ada, but it would take me weeks if it weren't part
of my environment.

Just me 0.02, as well. :-)

Frank

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Marin David Condic]

I'm glad I've got an ally here. I would not be totally shocked to discover
that ACT is working on something very much like that. (Put this in the
Totally Unfounded Speculation department). After all, a good many of the
tools you list are things that ACT already tinkers with. Its not
inconceivable to me that they might be integrating some of these things more
than they already are & improving their product as a result. Some
integration must be happening - how much is yet to be seen.

I drove Aonix around a number of years ago - the product was at the time not
really mature and suffered some problems as a result. I was also
considerably less experienced with Windows programming (which they assumed
you knew or would pick up a Windows C/C++ book and learn) at the time, so I
didn't get much farther than evaluating the product and deciding that for
the mission at hand I didn't want to try to use it. (not enough time to get
it all working and the project was short/unimportant and other tools were
there to do it.) I believe we looked at their product for the embedded
PowerPC on another project and settled on that - but that was someone else's
problem at the time. Maybe the environment is more sophisticated & reliable
at this juncture? Maybe its worth taking another look at? Maybe its price is
down some from (IIRC $700something neighborhood?)

I think one of the big disappointments to me with the Aonix environment was
that at the time, there was a shortage of documentation on how to use it
with Windows - sort of assuming you'd know how to do that from using MSVC++,
etc. That, of course, raises the question "Then why not just use MSVC++
since you've got to know it & have it anyway?" I also sort of felt that it
should have presented a more Ada-ish feeling to Windows programming - but I
can't blame them for not wanting to produce something that would be
unfamiliar to the experienced Windows developer. Still, I think it would be
good to take a look at where it is at after this much time...

MDC

--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:mailman.996265410.27257.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
>
> While I understand what you're saying, having come from a similar
> background, I think the lack of a complete/integrated environment
> is exactly the reason you have the shortage of Ada developers.  I
> like Marin's idea of the "Red Hat" approach to bundling a complete
> and powerful environment.  If someone had the time and inclination,
> they could bundle a package for Unix and one for Windows that
> contained something like (forgive me if I get the tools confused):
>
> - GtkAda
> - GLIDE
> - GLADE
> - ODBC bindings
> - a database
> - COM/DCOM
> - CORBA
> - etc (whatever I'm forgetting)
> - documentation and examples
>
> I think it would make an incredible difference.  Being one of those
> that like the IDE approach, I see it all the time in the Windows
> environment.  You can't tell me so many migrated to Windows because
> they like Bill Gates and just want to make him rich.  I have no desire
> to start an OS flame, but Windows is much simpler for the end user and
> for the developer for general applications.  Just look at the suite of
> tools available from Micro$oft & Borland (Inprise).  Every time our
> Delphi people want to implement something there is already and API or
> interface available in the tool.  All they have to do is call it.  I'm
> just amazed how fast those guys can crank things out.  I want to be
> able to do that in Ada, but it would take me weeks if it weren't part
> of my environment.
>
> Just me 0.02, as well. :-)
>
> Frank

RE: Ada The Best Language?

[Beard, Frank]

Aonix still has a way to go.  Documentation is still lacking, but the
online help is okay.  They still assume you will know Windows programming
or will look at an existing Windows programming book (like I want to look
at C/C++ examples).  The GUI builder is easy to use but it still needs
more automated Widgets like Delphi has.  And I wish it had some more
automated tools for interfacing to databases, etc.

You can also produce Java applets with it.  I played with it several
years ago and managed to produce a "Hello world" applet.  And again
it assumes you will know Java, or will be using an existing Java
programming book (like I want to look at Java examples).

Overall I like it, but it's still running behind Delphi and VC++.

Frank

PS.
I think the Professional Edition is ~$595.  The Enterprise Edition is
~$1195 or so, then they have a cross platform version (don't remember
the Edition).  Maybe they'll correct me if I'm wrong on the prices.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marin David Condic [mailto:marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:29 PM


I think one of the big disappointments to me with the Aonix environment was
that at the time, there was a shortage of documentation on how to use it
with Windows - sort of assuming you'd know how to do that from using MSVC++,
etc. That, of course, raises the question "Then why not just use MSVC++
since you've got to know it & have it anyway?" I also sort of felt that it
should have presented a more Ada-ish feeling to Windows programming - but I
can't blame them for not wanting to produce something that would be
unfamiliar to the experienced Windows developer. Still, I think it would be
good to take a look at where it is at after this much time...

MDC

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[JM]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:39:13 GMT, tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>>I too found the 5 year old data to be non interesting and not convincing.
>>
> >I too found many broken links.
>  I understand the adaic site is presently being moved and updated,
>so it isn't looking its best right now.  As has been pointed out,
>adahome maintenance ceased a couple of years ago and, although it
>has lots of archival stuff, new things are largely going to
>www.adapower.com
>  At a quick count, www.adapower.com has 1500 distinct URLs, about
>30 of which lead to an error 404.  About 1100 of those URLs are on
>the www.adapower.com site itself, 750 dated 1996 ..  1999, and about
>250 each from 2000 and (so far in) 2001.  Considering that the site
>is maintained by one unpaid guy in his spare time, that's rather good.
>  I'd be eager to test my statistics gatherer (written in Ada of course)
>against some C++ sites, can you suggest some?


Google has an excellent reference site for languages. Ada is actually
quite high on the list in terms of # references. Java simply smashes
C++.

http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/

-jason

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[tmoran]

> >   I'd be eager to test my statistics gatherer (written in Ada of course)
> (Is the source to your gatherer available?)
  Will be.  It's in a hard hat only state right now.  For instance,
one of the sites you mentioned showed the need for bigger URL_Counts,
and another has some URLs that I believe are not legally formed.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Gerhard Häring]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 05:32:23 GMT, JM <jmillard1@homey_remove_y.com> wrote:
>Google has an excellent reference site for languages. Ada is actually
>quite high on the list in terms of # references. Java simply smashes
>C++.
>
>http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/

Reminds me of:

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ada/

Google is using the data from dmoz. Wrt # of entries Ada is very high there. If
you think the quality of the entries is lacking, please take the time to give
feedback to to the editors (both of them). You can reach them at the bottom of
the page.

(Without some feedback, nothing will improve there.)

Thank you,

Gerhard
-- 
mail:   gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de       registered Linux user #64239
web:    http://highqualdev.com              public key at homepage
public key fingerprint: DEC1 1D02 5743 1159 CD20  A4B6 7B22 6575 86AB 43C0
reduce(lambda x,y: x+y, [chr(ord(x)^42) for x in list('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')])

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Matthew Woodcraft]

gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de (Gerhard H�ring) writes:

> Google is using the data from dmoz. Wrt # of entries Ada is very high there.
> If you think the quality of the entries is lacking, please take the time to
> give feedback to to the editors (both of them). You can reach them at the
> bottom of the page.
> 
> (Without some feedback, nothing will improve there.)


The wikipedia entry for Ada <http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Ada>
could do with some love, too.

-M-

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[tmoran]

>http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ada/
>...
>feedback to to the editors (both of them). You can reach them at the bottom of
  Here are some problems that perhaps can be solved by page owners, before
going to the editors.
http://church.computer.org/proceedings/tools/0393/03930320abs.htm *** WSAE_Connrefused
http://dmoz.org/ajpo_databases/projects.html *** Can't Connect
http://go1.163.com/~wangcity/adacompiler.html *** WSAE_Timedout
http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~dale/ada/aln.html *** HTTP  403
http://telem.openu.ac.il/courses/1998b/c20271/sites.htm *** HTTP  403
http://wheat.uwaterloo.ca/bibliography/Compiler/ada.html *** WSAE_Connrefused
http://www.adaic.com/docs/reports/landry/landry.htm *** HTTP  404
http://www.codeforge.com/tutorials/AdaTutorial.html *** HTTP  404
http://www.guiduck.com/download.html *** HTTP  404
http://www.hardcorehackers.com/doc/gnat-doc/html/arm95_toc.html *** HTTP  403
http://www.mcondic.com/C-Plus-Plus_Programming.html *** ???  0
http://www.peugeotclub.org/bfd/ada/index.htm *** HTTP  404
http://www.ping.de/sites/maxwell/links/JAVA/WWWpages.html *** HTTP  404
http://www.sccisoft.com/intermed1.htm *** Can't Connect
http://yeo.chat.ru/ada/ada_en.html *** Can't Connect

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Gerhard Häring]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:46:35 GMT, tmoran@acm.org <tmoran@acm.org> wrote:
>>http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ada/
>>...
>>feedback to to the editors (both of them). You can reach them at the bottom of
>  Here are some problems that perhaps can be solved by page owners, before
>going to the editors.
>http://church.computer.org/proceedings/tools/0393/03930320abs.htm *** WSAE_Connrefused
>http://dmoz.org/ajpo_databases/projects.html *** Can't Connect
>[...]

It's the job of the editors to ensure the entries work and are worth being
listed.

If you think the something sucks, complain (via editor feedback to at least
one, better both editors).

(I'm one of the editors, but I am pretty alone with thinking the cat sucks in
the present state; I prefer quality, while other peoples priority is to add as
much links as possible)

Gerhard
-- 
mail:   gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de       registered Linux user #64239
web:    http://highqualdev.com              public key at homepage
public key fingerprint: DEC1 1D02 5743 1159 CD20  A4B6 7B22 6575 86AB 43C0
reduce(lambda x,y: x+y, [chr(ord(x)^42) for x in list('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')])

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Beard, Frank" wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@home.com]
> > In the UNIX world however, I don't think this thinking is quite so
> mainstream.
> > After all, you want a compiler that fits your
> cost/reliability/conformance/
> > validation requirements. You choose your source control tools on the basis
> > of standards/company mandate/personal preference etc. You choose your
> editor
> > often on religious grounds. You choose your debugger on cost/productivity
> > basis maybe.
> 
> Yes, but a complete bundled package sure would be nice, especially for
> students, novices, and beginners.

OK, I will grant that for perhaps a large number of people _new_ to Ada,
that perhaps a "cohesive whole", an IDE, might be of a great benefit to
many starting out. I was not thinking of students et al, but yes, I'll
concede that to this type of audience, an integrated IDE would eliminate
a lot of "trouble" at a time when they are getting a grip on the other
basics. 

> > Having said all that, I do know that a large portion of these developers
> > like the IDE approach (if given the choice). I myself do not like them,
> > but then, maybe I'm strange that way.
> 
> Well, since you use Ada, I'll still talk to you. ;-)

Ok, good. ;-)

> > I find that the combination of my own modified editor,
> > custom tools, command line editing (emacs mode of course) etc., allow
> > me to be much more effective than any IDE has allowed me to be. Make files
> > do the rest.
> 
> I just don't like the functionality being so disjoint.  I prefer an
> all-in-one tool that automates many things for me in a default kind
> of way.  If I need something special, there is usually a way to change
> the default.

Automation is OK, if sensibly done. I don't like the way the MS Visual
tools work at the "project level". Their make files are basically
unreadable -- I don't like giving up control of my project to any
vendor, Red Hat or not.  After all, there are some things any IDE
will not handle, or handle correctly. There will be times, when I
want to tweak or take control of things manually. Most IDEs don't
leave room for this.

> > Yet I grant that others do like IDEs, and perhaps perform better that
> > way.
> 
> I seem to.

I find that the editors provided with these IDE's, cripple me. If they
would integrate better with user supplied editors, I'd be more generally
favourable towards them.  The MS Visual suite and the Aonix IDE etc,
all have nice colourfull editors -- but crippled in functionality beyond
linking errors to source code. I found myself constantly dropping out
of the IDE, to return to a more editor efficient emacs (BTW, I use a
custom version MicroEMACS, because I have been able to port it to every
UNIX that I've landed on, without much trouble-- saving me from vi, in
most cases. It's small footprint means that you can bring it with you
on one floppy).

> > I personally don't see this "integration matter" as the issue. Management
> > doesn't argue against it at this level -- they site the cost of finding
> > Ada developers, the fact that it is "unusual" or "not popular". They also
> > site that we cannot train people on "Ada" because they themselves may not
> > want to be in that area as a career choice. These are the types of issues
> > I see and hear.  Rarely is the resistance based upon technical/packaging
> > details.
> 
> While I understand what you're saying, having come from a similar
> background, I think the lack of a complete/integrated environment
> is exactly the reason you have the shortage of Ada developers.  I
> like Marin's idea of the "Red Hat" approach to bundling a complete
> and powerful environment.  If someone had the time and inclination,
> they could bundle a package for Unix and one for Windows that
> contained something like (forgive me if I get the tools confused):
> 
> - GtkAda
> - GLIDE
> - GLADE
> - ODBC bindings
> - a database
> - COM/DCOM
> - CORBA
> - etc (whatever I'm forgetting)
> - documentation and examples
> 
> I think it would make an incredible difference.  Being one of those
> that like the IDE approach, I see it all the time in the Windows
> environment.  You can't tell me so many migrated to Windows because
> they like Bill Gates and just want to make him rich.  I have no desire..

You've convinced me, that it would be a "good thing" (tm) (especially,
if the above list was included). It would probably help many to get 
"started". Whether this is going to make the "revolution" or not, I 
guess remains to be tested ;-)

As far as management is concerned, I suppose if developers clamour for
a particular IDE, then this may be important-- at least if management
is sympathetic to its developers.

> Frank

So when will we see version 1.0 ? ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Tom Moran]

> Reminds me of:
> 
> http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ada/
    I notice that about 10% of the links there are to sites apparently
running the Code Red worm target Microsoft IIS 4.0/5.0 servers.
One hopes they have all updated their security.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <81f1090a.0107301859.65c4f842@posting.google.com>, tmoran@acm.org (Tom Moran) writes:
>> Reminds me of:
>> 
>> http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ada/
>     I notice that about 10% of the links there are to sites apparently
> running the Code Red worm target Microsoft IIS 4.0/5.0 servers.
> One hopes they have all updated their security.

Others hope they are about to learn their lesson.

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Preben Randhol]

On 31 Jul 2001 04:40:59 -0500, Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> Others hope they are about to learn their lesson.

I think that M$ is run by the PR department and that: "All PR is good
PR".

Preben
-- 
�Don't use C;  In my opinion,  C is a library programming language
 not an app programming language.�  - Owen Taylor (GTK+ developer)

Use Ada 95, a free language. More info at http://www.adapower.com/

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[David Thompson]

David C. Hoos <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote :
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl>
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
> To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 11:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?
...
> > Almost all printfs are compile-time printfs.
> I beg to differ.  All printfs must be run-time interpreters, otherwise they
> couldn't support variable format strings -- i.e., the string that defines
> the
> way the output elements are to be formatted.
>
I think you're talking about different things here.
A (conforming hosted) C implementation must provide a printf
(and scanf etc.) that runtime interpret the format string, yes.
But most, I'd bet over 99%, of *printf and *scanf calls use
literal (= compiletime constant) formats.  It would be legal
for an implementation to "precompile" these into specific
per-datum operations; I don't know of any that does, though
gcc with -Wformat does compile-time _check_ for agreement
between the conversion specifier (%d, %s, etc.) and argument,
which is not required and not generally possible for varargs.
Fortran also permits runtime-variable formats -- but again
the overwhelming majority of actual formats are constant.

> The other thing about prontf that is different from Ada is the fact that it
> (as well as many other C functions) takes a variable number of arguments.
>
Many?  The only varargs functions in the standard C library
are the *printf and *scanf families.  POSIX/Unix adds open
(really only optional not variable), fcntl, syslog, and execl*.
This is out of some thousand or so total, although I expect
printf in particular is among the most frequently used.
Occurrence in user (and third-party) code is of course up to
the programmer(s), but IME is not that common; YMMV.

The bad part is not that number (and types) of arguments is variable --
Ada, and C++, accomplish that safely but within limits with overloads,
templates/generics and defaults -- it is that C-varargs usually aren't
checked for correct type(s) and number, and in conventional
compile+link systems, can't be; I can imagine something like
IBM VisualAge could check, but I have no idea if it does.

--
- David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

David Thompson wrote:
> David C. Hoos <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote :
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl>
> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
> > To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 11:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?
> ...
> > The other thing about prontf that is different from Ada is the fact that it
> > (as well as many other C functions) takes a variable number of arguments.
> >
> Many?  The only varargs functions in the standard C library
> are the *printf and *scanf families.  POSIX/Unix adds open
> (really only optional not variable), fcntl, syslog, and execl*.
> This is out of some thousand or so total, although I expect
> printf in particular is among the most frequently used.
> Occurrence in user (and third-party) code is of course up to
> the programmer(s), but IME is not that common; YMMV.

Also don't forget the X Window calls.. a few of those use variable
# of args as well.

> The bad part is not that number (and types) of arguments is variable --
> Ada, and C++, accomplish that safely but within limits with overloads,
> templates/generics and defaults -- it is that C-varargs usually aren't
> checked for correct type(s) and number, and in conventional
> compile+link systems, can't be; I can imagine something like
> IBM VisualAge could check, but I have no idea if it does.
> 
> --
> - David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net

GCC does check if you enable it, but only for static format strings.
It cannot check obviously, for "string variable" formats.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg

Re: Ada The Best Language?

[stoog]

In article <3B5573DA.5ABA8EA7@earthlink.net>, "Marc says...
>
 >Ada's strong typing produces "information dense" code.  Simple
>declarations, like that of Altitude above, inherently provide
>information that would otherwise have to be explicitly maintained or
>derived when using other languages.
>
>Marc A. Criley
 
exactly. this simple fact, is one of the most powerfull features of
ada. 

after so many years, it is still to this day very clear that ada is the best
engineered computer language out there.