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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,da46977c58c329df X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-31 10:28:16 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news1.tor.metronet.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C598CBE.9030501@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada's Slide To Oblivion ... References: <4519e058.0201310714.650888e1@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:28:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:28:15 MDT Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc. Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19432 Date: 2002-01-31T18:28:15+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:... > >>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