From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-08 13:22:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: is Ada dying? Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 13:25:38 -0700 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3BC20BC2.1F92FADB@adaworks.com> References: <9prl5701m0v@drn.newsguy.com> <3bc16b42.3799903@news.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.c4.0b Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 8 Oct 2001 20:22:05 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13967 Date: 2001-10-08T20:22:05+00:00 List-Id: John McCabe wrote: > On 8 Oct 2001 00:38:15 -0700, Robert*@ > wrote: John gives a list of Ada 83 compilers below. Someone might read this as an indication that there are fewer compilers for Ada 95 than Ada 83. What has happened is quite different. Many of the compilers shown were developed in-house by companies who needed a "checkbox" compiler. I have been told by the senior management of a couple of these companies that the only reason for having a validated Ada compiler is so they could respond to an RFP by checking off the box labled, "Validated Ada." Many of these compilers were designed on top of other compilers, leveraging someone else's technology. If one were to carefully examine the source of these in-house compilers, it would soon become clear that only a few compilers were actually in place, and those targeted to a wide number of computers. Often, the compiler was licensed so the hardware manufacturer could label it with their own proprietary name. What has happened with Ada 95 is a more realistic organization of the compiler industry. Some compiler publishers have consolidated, hardware manufacturers have seen the folly of trying to be experts in Ada compiler development, the pricing structures have changed, and those who were simply unprofitable failed to make the transition to Ada 95. One other detail needs to be noted. When Ada was a mandated language instead of an optional one for DoD projects, some compiler publishers saw the mandate as an opportunity to charge outrageous licensing fees for their compilers. Also, since they could get these fees from the DoD, they had little incentive to seriously address the commercial market where those kinds of fees were unacceptable. With a few exceptions, these compiler publishers have been forced to adjust their licensing fees to more realistically reflect the choice now available to DoD software developers. Richard Riehle > So, while this report says that numbers of compilers have risen since > 1987 etc, what has happened since 1992? www.adaic.org lists the > following vendors as having certified Ada 95 compilers: > > ACT > Aonix > Averstar > Conccurrent Computer Corporation > DDC-I > Green Hills > Irvine Compiler Corporation > OC Systems > Rational > RR Software > > For Ada 83 you have all of the above except ACT plus: > > Active Engineering Technologies > Aitech Defense Systems > Alenia Aeritalia & Selenia S.p.A (DACS? - ex-DDC-I?) > Convex > Control Data > Cray Research > DESC (formerly ICL) > DEC > EDS-Scicon > Encore > GSE Gesellschaft fur Software Engineering mbH (Meridian) > Green Valley (!) > HP (Apparently now TSP -> Aonix) > IBM (now OC Systems) > Intel > MIPS (now Rational, Green Hills and DDC-I) > Multiprocessor Toolsmiths, Inc > NEC > Proprietary Software Systems > Rockwell International Corporation > SKY Computers, Inc > STN ATLAS Elektronik GmbH > Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG > Silicon Graphics > Software Leverage, Inc. > Stratus Computer Inc > Sun Microsystems > TLD Systems, Ltd > Tartan Inc (incl TI) > U.S. Air Force > Wang Laboratories, Inc > > (Sorry - didn't expect the list to be so long!!!) > > So the question that needs to be asked is whether you really want to > promote Ada 83, as there is such a long list of compilers for it > (despite the fact I would be surprised if you could source many of > them anymore), or promote Ada 95 which has clearly seen far less > commercial investment in supporting products. > > John