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: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-29 19:26:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!peernews-us.colt.net!newsfeed.news2me.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.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:26:44 -0700 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3EAF3464.9E06145F@adaworks.com> References: <3EA04A1E.CAFC1FEF@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0304221126.7112b7d5@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304230439.55d28e70@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304250437.38893d8c@posting.google.com> <3EA9E194.BAC2A2B6@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0304260659.6d02cb59@posting.google.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.b2.60.0c Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 30 Apr 2003 02:26:50 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62913 comp.object:62315 comp.lang.ada:36750 misc.misc:13810 Date: 2003-04-30T02:26:50+00:00 List-Id: soft-eng wrote: > Richard Riehle wrote in message news:<3EA9E194.BAC2A2B6@adaworks.com>... > > soft-eng wrote: > > > > > So you are saying the Ada projects that succeeded were secret, > > > and the ones that were not secret did not succeed? > > > > Go to www.adaic.org. There are plenty of case histories > > of Ada projects that succeeded. This includes a large > > Amazingly enough, I don't think there are any such sites for > C, C++, Java... So .... > Instead, when you read my message and typed a respnse in your > newsreader, you provided testimony that these languages have been > used by actual people to provide actually useful software. I also provided testimony that Ada has been used by intelligent developers for successful projects. In fact, there are so many successful Ada projects that anyone who suggests it is useless for developing software is simply not paying attention. > You may claim that these were all stupid people who couldn't > chose the right language for the tool, couldn't understand > Ada, or didn't realize they could have done a better job in Ada. People select programming languages for all kinds of reasons, few of which have to do with the quality of the language. > But given that Ada was not only available, but actively > supported by HUGE amounts of tax money, I may choose > to believe you are arguing from nothing but personal biases. I am arguing, if you please, from personal/professional experience with the language. I am also arguing from the many successes I know about. As for that "HUGE amounts of tax money" much it was wasted by bureaucrats shuffling paper around. Few of them knew anything about software. The successes of Ada have been in spite of, not because of, support from the government. One reason why Ada is enjoying a resurgence of interest in some quarters is because the government is no longer mandating it. People who use it now are doing so because they see its virtues, not because they are required to do so. Those who have adopted Ada, in recent years, are enjoying its benefits. Those who have abandoned it are not doing all that well with, for example, C++ (a horrid language full of surprises and gotchas). Many of us continue to prefer Ada precisely because it is fun, easy to use, and easy to develop software. There are aspects of the language that do not come easily. However, most of the language does come easily, and the advanced features are not necessary for someone to enjoy it. I am currently teaching an Ada class for a group of graduate students. Their responses, so far (many with C++ and Java background), are quite favorable. We write programs for Windows, as well as for other environments in this class. Sorry you had such bad Ada training. There was a lot of that going around at one time, perpetrated by people who simply failed to understand some elementary ideas and made them more complicated than necessary. Richard Riehle