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: 103376,630c12e823d1bdf4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-10 02:32:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Hijacking a Thread was RE: New Ada compiler for .NET Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:41:14 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3E1EA349.6B97C328@adaworks.com> References: <1040653133.613605@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3e18f3f3_1@news.tm.net.my> <6KwmrO7CZtnj@eisner.encompasserve.org> <1041910244.361888@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3E1E5604.5030209@nospam.adrianhoe.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.b2.41.85 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 10 Jan 2003 10:32:13 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32874 Date: 2003-01-10T10:32:13+00:00 List-Id: Adrian Hoe wrote: > Could the use of Ada to develop weapon systems the main hatred against > Ada? I think this should provoke some deep thinking among CLA and I > definitely is expecting some bashing.... Oh.. oh.. I do recall, from the late late Eighties and early Nineties, that at least one prominent SF Bay Area company noted for its real-time systems support, refused to publicly acknowledge any association with Ada because its founders considered Ada the programming language for "killing and maiming." These guys were U.C. Berkeley grads. That being said, many other dual-use ideas and tools originally developed under DoD auspices have not suffered that fate, perhaps because they were never directly advertised as originating with the DoD. It can be conjectured that the DoD mandate was, in part responsible for the resistance to Ada, but not because it was designed for weapon systems. Rather, major compiler vendors (RR Software and Meridian excluded) treated Ada as a DoD feeding trough and charged such outrageous licensing fees that few commercial companies could even consider using it. Others, such as Tandem Computers, created what they called "checkbox" compilers, never intending that anyone would ever use the compiler. In the case of Tandem, Ada could have been a strategic advantage, but they never interfaced their compiler with the rest of their operating system and development environments. The whole idea of validating a compiler turned out to be incorrectly conceived. Validation required nothing more than that the compiler conform to the standard, but there was little incentive for the compiler to be integrated into the rest of the tools, resources, and capabilities of the targeted platform. Such checkbox compilers became a source of frustration for programmers, most of whom discovered they needed to create their own libraries to interface to their expected platform. Many people recognized this when Ada 95 came along, but that recognition was too late to reinvigorate Ada's reputation. Then the DoD withdrew its support for Ada at the very point in its development when good tools began to appear. This was a little like "grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory." On the other hand, if the DoD had continued with the mandate, the same compiler publishers would still be seeking to feed at the trough of government money and continue to charge huge fees for the use of the technology. There has to be some happy medium between completely free, a la GNAT, and a reasonably priced compiler that comes complete with tools, direct support for a given platform, etc., versus the feeding frenzy inspired by any government mandate, Ada or otherwise. It is no accident that so many compiler publishers have abandoned or de-escalated their support for Ada now that they do not have a captive customer. I believe Ada can stand on its own. The work of ACT, along with many others has helped to democratize the language. However, ACT is not the only game in town and others continue to create serious compilers for the rigorous demands of real-time, safety-critical software. DDC-I and Irvine Compiler Corporation come to mind as examples of these kinds of responsible commercial companies who continue to be strong supporters of Ada. I apologize if I have overlooked anyone else, but the fact is that none of those companies does much to promote Ada beyond their traditional customer base. Oh, yes, Aonix made an attempt before it was purchased by an a bunch of ignoramouses who failed to see the value of their Ada capability until too late. Richard Riehle