Re: Ada's Slide To Oblivion ...

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com>]

Ted Dennison wrote:

> "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in message news:<a3a19n$db9$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> 
>>An interesting article. One could argue about the accuracy of the survey,
>>but it probably isn't that far off from reality.
> 
> The only thing I found completely wrong was the assertion that you
> can't call an Ada compiler "Ada" without going through validation or
> the copyright holder to the term will come after you. The DoD isn't
> enforcing that copyright anymore. It is the Ada community that demands
> validation, not any one entity. But that would probably have been
> tougher to explain properly.


The assertion "That's unheard of in the Ada world, since the compilers
are essentially perfect" was a bit much also. I've run into a few GNAT
bugs that caused me to scratch my head for a while. Ada does not
eliminate a programmer's logic errors, but it sure helps to eliminate
a wider range of stupid erros.


>>The good news is that if people are writing thoughtful articles like this
>>and observing that Ada really does have benefits (despite lack of use) maybe
>>it might generate some renewed interest. The fact that they're writing about
>>it at all is a sign that Ada isn't a non-issue. IOW, "I don't care what they
>>say about Ada as long as they capitalize its name right!" :-)
> 
> I really think Ada 83 was just *waaaaay* ahead of its time. Back in
> the 80's and early 90's you'd quite often hear people seriously argue
> *against* type checking. These days that's pretty rare (see some of
> Eric Raymond's writings, if you want a trip back in that particular
> way-back machine). Now that folks are using Java and C++ regularly and
> can see for themselves the benifits to compile-time checking and
> object-oriented design, suddenly Ada doesn't look so bad any more.


I also have to question "DOD caved, first allowing a few exceptions, 

then many, till now Ada is more an interesting historical aside 

than part of every developer's zeitgeist."  I may be wrong, but as

I understand it, the language is still considered on a project by
project basis. I cannot see them acceptiong anything but Ada for
weapons or flight systems. Or has this really changed?

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg