Re: Ada -vs- GNAT

[Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>   Which is like being a little bit pregnant.  It means the potential user
> must:  switch to Gnat; start a new branch of the update tree; or not use
> your package.  It makes life simpler for you, harder for your users, and
> (possibly) richer for ACT.  Just remember all those consequences of your
> decision.

Let me take a Devil's advocate position for a change.

Some years ago, Bill Joy gave a talk at an ACM meeting where he
lambasted the idea of standards.    He is not alone in this view. For
many software developers, standards simply inhibit creativity, not
to mention productivity.

We often cite the ISO standardization of Ada as a positive feature of
the language, while others cite the standardization of C++ as a
handicap.    In an article in THINK magazine in 1964, someone wrote,
"The last act of a dying organization is to enlarge the rule book."  Many
of us have seen that happen where a company on the brink of bankruptcy
suddenly begins to enforce its dress code or work-hour rules.

It may be that the last act of a dying computer language is to seek ISO
standardization.     One reason for the reaction against traditional
software engineering in the Agile Programming movement is the
inability to get things done using the formalisms and standards that
keep popping up to thwart success.    XP is a reaction to the Industrial
Engineering model that has characterized so much software engineering
practice.

When a Standard keeps a language from meeting its full potential, is that
a good thing.  When we insist that no construct may be used that
is not in the standard, is that not like saying we abhor innovation.   I
once noted, while working on an Army project, that the military is one
of those places where innovation lasts -- and lasts -- and lasts.   We
can all think of times when  bureaucratic trifles prevented some good
idea from going forward.    Ceremony may be useful as a way of
comforting the uneasy with a sense of the familiar, but it does little
to promote progress.

So, it ACT deems it useful to add something as simply as attibutes to its
compiler to accomplish things not pre-determined by the standard, so
be it.    This could be one of the features that differentiates their product

from that of other compiler publishers.   If I recall correctly, the Ada
standard recognizes the reality that there may be occasional needs to
stray from the strict canon of the standard.

Let's not be the kind of people for who innovation lasts -- and lasts -- and
lasts.

Richard Riehle