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: 2001-12-02 11:56:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.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: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:58:28 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3C0A87E4.6C334D4@adaworks.com> References: <3wdH7.20135$xS6.32614@www.newsranger.com> <9tqete0gqc@drn.newsguy.com> <3C0924D6.2B5A3087@adaworks.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cc.8d Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 2 Dec 2001 19:55:22 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17311 Date: 2001-12-02T19:55:22+00:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff wrote: > Well, duh! These people must be pretty dumb. Overconstrain the problem and > there are no solutions. Did they think about hiring people who don't know > Ada? Ada is a fairly easy language to learn IMO, *far* easier than C++, > especially if you're willing to omit concurrency. We did train a core group within their company. As I understand it, some of their software is still written in Ada. However, any new work is being done in C++, for the reasons mentioned earlier. As a resident of the aforementioned valley, there are a number of reasons > I never saw a job solicitation from an SV company here, so it seems that > your clients neglected this newsgroup. Doesn't seem like they tried too > hard. Au contraire. The advertised in the SJ Mercury News, posted to this very web site and posted to the Team-Ada Listserv. Also, I reconmended some people, but none of them was interested at the time. > Hmmph. I took a job programming in OCaml, far less widely used than Ada. > Why people worry about this is beyond me. I wouldn't want a job where > the language du-jour was the primary considertaion. Been there, done that > (with Java) and as Alex Stepanov said, it doesn't smell so good. I have been consistent in my support for Ada for a long time. My company, AdaWorks, has been focusing almost entirely on Ada for about fourteen years. We kept going through lean times as well as through those that were more lively. Currently, I am engaged in an effort to increase interest about Ada among a specific and carefully targeted group of future influencers. I hope the fruits of this effort will result in more decisions to use the language for more systems. In my view, Ada is the still the most appropriate language development environment for DoD military software and any decision to use something else does not represent careful evaluation of the relative merits of the competing alternatives. I may be accused of C++ bashing, so be it. I really don't care. I regard the choice of C++ for military software as just plain bad. It is a dangerous choice, and those who make it often fail to realize just how bad it is when compared to the current Ada standard. > Hire willing programmers who don't know Ada and train them. It is *not* > that hard! A good programmer will not be hung up on surface syntax and > will be able to take much of their knowledge of C/C++/Java over to Ada. Good advice. However, it ignores the realities of the software marketplace, the current state of awareness among managers, and the substantial anti-Ada bias that pervades the Silicon Valley software community. It is a bias that originates, not in actual knowledge, but in a collection of minsinformation that conveys a false view of Ada as a programming language. This false impression goes back a long way, beginning in the early eighties when the DoD mandate required Ada for all new software even though the compilers were not at production quality and the programmers were not adequately trained to understand how to use it correctly. We are still working to overcome this history. > Much of the interesting Ada work we see now is in the open source > community. That's great, but there needs to be some more activity in the > commercial world too. Agreed. And we also need to start using Ada for DoD weapons systems again. Of course, one of the best things that could happen for Ada is for someone to create a suite of commercial software that competes with the stuff that comes from Redmond, using Ada. Sell lots of copies. Make it wildly popular. Later announce that it was programmed in Ada, using CLAW or GtkAda. For example, the publishers of the new XP series of software have just made it attractive, with their oppressive new licensing policies, for someone to put a competing integrated office suite on the market, one that runs on all operating systems (using something like GtkAda). I just participated in a project using GtkAda that, although quite specific to a particular application, demonstates how easily one can get out from under the domination of a software Mafia. It would take funding, creative people, and extraordinary management, but the current state of Ada technology is such that it is possible. On a scale less grand, we need some original products written in Ada that attract a commercial following. With all the brainpower that exists in this forum, I find it odd that there are no entrepreneurs with the chutzpah to take on this kind of project, no one with the imagination to conceive a new product or improved version of an existing product. When Ada succeeds in the commercial marketplace, it will be because Ada enthusiasts have started to build viable commercial products in the language. Once that happens. Others will follow and corporations will take Ada seriously. > FWIW, I've discussed Ada quite a bit with my manager and he acknowledges > that it's a lot better than C, C++ or Java, from his POV. We use OCaml but > if we had to do some C level work I'd have no problem doing it in Ada. > There are a *lot* of managers and programmers who are willing to try new > things. Thank goodness (really Schonberg, Dewar, and the rest of ACT) > that there is a high quality, free Ada compiler so that prospective users > can kick the tires instead of just reading! I agree. The work of ACT has made all the difference, even for those who publish commercial compilers such as ICC, DDC-I, and OCS. But not everything can be free. The ACT business model is unique and creative, but few businesses can survive on that model. RR Software sells a powerful tool, CLAW, that is pretty much unrivaled for its completeness, the level of craftsmanship that goes into it, and the dedication one sees in Ada stalwart, Randy Brukhardt. We need to be willing to support, with our checkbooks, those who keep Ada alive through their day-to-day efforts with commercially available products. We also need to keep others in our community informed about what is going on. The only newsletter I receive on a regular basis from an Ada company is from DDC-I. Joyce Tokar and Jennifer Sanchez do a great job of summarizing their current successes, sharing a little bit of technical information, and informing about the current state of the community. No one else takes the trouble to do this. As far as the Ada community is concerned, nothing is going on. There is no news of new projects, follow-on work, contracts won for Ada software, new products released that use Ada, new tools, new compilers, etc. There is an Ada consortium, but it is a tightly-knit group that seems to assume no one outside their immediate group is interested in what is happening with Ada. They never announce anything, never publish anything, never post anything to this newsgroup, and never send anything like a newsletter to those who continue to support Ada. If Ada is not visible, even to its supporters, imagine how little visibility it has among those who might benefit from it if they only knew it still was an option. Richard Riehle