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: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-01 10:39:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Future with Ada Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 10:43:35 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3C0924D6.2B5A3087@adaworks.com> References: <3wdH7.20135$xS6.32614@www.newsranger.com> <9tqete0gqc@drn.newsguy.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.c5.26 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 1 Dec 2001 18:41:39 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17284 Date: 2001-12-01T18:41:39+00:00 List-Id: "ben@NO_SPAM_EMAIL" wrote: > That is funny. It is almost impossible to find any Ada wanted ads these days. > Actually there are more openings for almost any other language than for Ada. > > Can you point to ONE commerical Ada opening right now that requires no > active security clearance in the US? I bet you there is none. Over and over, we encounter companies who, after deciding to use Ada for its technological advantages, cannot hire qualified Ada programmers. Our most recent experience was a company in Silicon Valley. They were excited about using Ada, asked us to train some of the people, and then tried to hire more programmers to do Ada. They found it nearly impossible to find people with experience in their domain, sufficient mathematics, and lots of experience in Ada. Sadly, they finally decided to use C++ because it was so much easier to find programmers. We encounter this same problem with DoD contractors. One reason I am given by major DoD software developers, for their choice of C++ is availability of personnel. Often they admit the superiority of Ada but justify their choice of C++ or Java on the basis of the difficulty of hiring Ada programmers. In those same organizations, many programmers don't want to program in Ada because they see few commercial opportunities for that skill. These programmers don't care whether Ada is a better language. They care about the future of their career. The companies don't care whether Ada is superior to C++. They often admit it is. They do care about being able to hire people who want to program in Ada. One can dismiss this as a "chicken and egg" problem. However, it is a problem that needs solving. There are still a few brave non-DoD managers out there who are enjoying the benefits of Ada and would choose nothing else. This kind of enlightenment is not as widespread as we might like. If the DoD had not given the impression of abandoning Ada when it did, we might be a lot further ahead. Yes, I know, abandonment was not the intention of the letter that abrogated the mandate, but that is how it is widely interpreted by both DoD contractors and commercial organizations that might have chosen it. We need to raise the visibility of Ada in the media, and among our non-Ada colleagues. At present, no one is making any effective effort to make Ada visible and attactive to the larger software community. Nothing is being done to promote it among the software managers at DoD contractor sites, not to mention the non-DoD sites. Those commercial organizations who have chosen Ada have done so on the basis of their own wisdom. They benefit from that choice and rarely see the benefit of proseletyzing their competitors. As a technology, I believe Ada is still a better choice for many software domains. It is going to take something more than better technology to make the difference. A long time ago, Ralph Crafts was a powerful spokesman for the industry. He finally gave up, recognizing that his "voice in the wilderness" was not being as appreciated as it should have been. No one has stepped in to take over the work Ralph was doing. If someone has stepped in, they are not making themselves or Ada visible. Richard Riehle