* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America @ 1995-02-22 20:59 Chuck Bramlet 1995-02-23 17:24 ` David Moore 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Chuck Bramlet @ 1995-02-22 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Gregory Aharonian expounds at length on the "fact" that Ada is not being enthusiastically embraced by corporate America. Personally, being reletively new to the programming business, I don't see that much of a problem with Ada. If Greg could see some of the hacked code that I had to dig through last year, to write an Ada program that did the same thing, he might change his mind. The value of a language is in how well it is used, and in how easily it can be made to do what needs to be done. Granted, there are other languages that are more easily used, but each has it's target users and applications. While you wouldn't necessarily program a PC application in Ada, you deffinately would not want to program an airplane in COBOL or SmallTalk. At least, IMHO. Also, if one's company wants to program for a government facility, for the most part one must program in Ada. Also, for the record here, COBOL was brought to us many years ago by the same people who are now pushing Ada (the U.S. Government). Thankfully, I have not had to endure the agravation of taking a COBOL class. But, I understand that COBOL is about as programmer friendly as Ada. Just my $0.02 Chuck bramlet bramlet@eccx.ateng.az.honeywell.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America 1995-02-22 20:59 Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America Chuck Bramlet @ 1995-02-23 17:24 ` David Moore 1995-02-24 2:56 ` Pug 156 1995-02-25 4:25 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: David Moore @ 1995-02-23 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) Chuck Bramlet <"ELL447::BRAMLET"@ECC7.ATENG.AZ.HONEYWELL.COM> writes: >Also, for the record here, COBOL was brought to us many years >ago by the same people who are now pushing Ada (the U.S. >Government). Not really. The Government was involved but not in the same way as with Ada. > Thankfully, I have not had to endure the agravation >of taking a COBOL class. But, I understand that COBOL is about >as programmer friendly as Ada. Talk about damning with faint praise! I have not written large amounts of COBOL for something like 7 years and the language has changed (I hear rumours of Object Orientation - I saw a claimed example of same in a Journal but either the example or the COBOL extensions are horribly wrong). Classic COBOL has no block structure, no types (you can fake it on some compilers with "COPY"). One procedure per compilation unit (there is a "perform" which allows you to out-of-order execute and return within a compilation unit but you cannot pass parameters and there are no local variables) . No effective looping constructs, so you have to use go-tos (or performs) everywhere. For a while back in the eighties a number of companies were trying to market "4GLs" (fourth generation languages) as a replacement for COBOL. The ones I saw had the characteristic of being approximately as broke as COBOL. Usually they were as broke and much more limited in functionality as well. Even so, a lot of companies bought them. One wonders how hard it would be to sell a real language like Ada 95 to COBOL shops, especially if integrated into an environment that supported conversion of applications. You would want the new decimal capabilities that were introduced in Ada 95, of course. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America 1995-02-23 17:24 ` David Moore @ 1995-02-24 2:56 ` Pug 156 1995-02-24 10:19 ` Daneil Wengelin 1995-02-25 19:44 ` Robert Dewar 1995-02-25 4:25 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Pug 156 @ 1995-02-24 2:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Its no use, folks. Unix and C are the best operating system and language the '70s ever built! Regardless of the fact that C and its bastard C++ have had the price and time advantage over Ada, Ada just can't keep up. Remember, C is more popular than Ada, DOS/Windows than OS/2, and Volkswagen than Porsche. Please, recognize your failure and let C, DOS, and Volkswagen have some room. We will waste no more time with Ada, OS/2, and Porsche. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America 1995-02-24 2:56 ` Pug 156 @ 1995-02-24 10:19 ` Daneil Wengelin 1995-02-25 19:44 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Daneil Wengelin @ 1995-02-24 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Pug 156 (pug156@aol.com) wrote: : Its no use, folks. Unix and C are the best operating system and language : the '70s ever built! Regardless of the fact that C and its bastard C++ Sounds very much like the Swiss watch manufacturer that when presented with a quartz watch, designed in his own labs, said "Our mechanical watches are the best...." and did'nt event bother to patent it! Suddenly the Swiss watchmakers went from 90% to 9% of the market.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Daniel Wengelin -- Team Ada, the best 0$ mem- -- -- CelsiusTech -- bership fee you'll ever spend -- -- dawe@celsiustech.se -- -- -- wengelin@ozspace.brisnet.org.au -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ with Standard_Disclaimer; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America 1995-02-24 2:56 ` Pug 156 1995-02-24 10:19 ` Daneil Wengelin @ 1995-02-25 19:44 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-02-25 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw) The comparison Ada : OS/2 : Porsche with C : DOS/Windows : Volkswagon is actually one that is pretty favorable to Ada. Yes, DOS/Windows is more popular than OS/2, but millions of people are using OS/2 to solve problems that would either be impossible or unsatisfactory if Windows were used to address them. Similarly, a substantial number of drivers are very happy to drive their Porshe's and would not consider driving or racing Volkswagen's in their place. Sure, C is much more pupular than Ada, and lilkely to remain so for the forseeable future, no one disagrees with that. But popularity is only one measure (after all judged this way, C is probably a failure compared to the miserable language used to program macros in Lotus 1-2-3, and COBOL may still have more programmers trudging around than C). The important thing is that, as in the OS/2 and Porshe cases, there will be cases in which the advantages of Ada play a critical part. The success of Ada will depend on two things: 1. Developing technology that can realize the potential of Ada 95 2. Working hard to identify and exploit those cases in which Ada can present a substantial advantage. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America 1995-02-23 17:24 ` David Moore 1995-02-24 2:56 ` Pug 156 @ 1995-02-25 4:25 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-02-25 4:25 UTC (permalink / raw) David Moore says "Classic COBOL has no block structure, no types (you can fake it on some compilers with "COPY"). One procedure per compilation unit (there is a "perform" which allows you to out-of-order execute and return within a compilation unit but you cannot pass parameters and there are no local variables) . No effective looping constructs, so you have to use go-tos (or performs) everywhere." Now really! We Ada folks should be particularly careful not to commit the crime of ignorant bashing of languages we know nothing about. Of course COBOL has block structure (nested programs) There are nested procedures Of course you can pass parameters (even COBOL 74 had this feature) Of course there are perfectly reasonable looping structures COBOL programmers are as allergic to gotos as Ada programmers Let's please get our facts straight if we are going to criticize other languages. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com>]
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America [not found] <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com> @ 1995-02-22 20:43 ` Robert I. Eachus [not found] ` <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov> ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1995-02-22 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes: > Yet one more measure of the rejection of Ada in this country, and > one more statistic that AJPO in its mismanagement of Ada policy > refuses to measure. An article in the February 20, 1995, issue of > Computerworld, page 129, on how companies use technical proficiency > tests listed the following table on the top 10 computing skills > tests being used by corporations... Again, Greg totally misses the point. If I were applying for a job and was asked to take ANY of these tests, I would walk out. Any place interested in my skills is hiring software engineers, not technicians. Even if COBOL or C was my language of choice--and I have programmed in both (in fact I have maintained compilers for both, which requires a lot deeper knowledge of the language), I would still walk out. So the only thing shown by these statistics is a combination of appropriate use (for entry level programmer positions) and preferences of clueless personel managers. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov>]
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America [not found] ` <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov> @ 1995-02-23 12:04 ` Robert Dewar 1995-02-23 16:13 ` Howard.Gilbert 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-02-23 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw) phw (I looked but did not find a name) says: "An axiom in the marketing game goes something like this: In order to break into an existing stable market (C++ etc.) a new product (Ada) must either offer twice the PERCEIVED positive characteristics at the same price, when compared to the existing products in the market, or offer the same PERCEIVED positive characteristics at half the price." what axiom is this? sounds totally bogus to me. Price sensitivity varies tremendously from one market to another. For example, in the airline game, much smaller price differentials can get new guys into the game. Equally, how easily people shift based on quality varies greatly. These factors of two seem just pulled out of the air. But then a lot of the other value judgments on Ada vs C++ are also pulled out of the air. For example, who says development costs are higher in Ada than in C++. This kind of comparison is very hard to make. You will find precious few cases where exactly the same software has been developed in both languages, so there is virtually no empirical data. Instead what we have is a bunch of Ada enthusiasts who don't know C++ that well who are subjectively sure that Ada development is easier, and vice versa. Yes, there are some data points (several I am aware of show much LOWER development costs in Ada). "Most commercial software is not maintained anyway" I don't really think you can take that as serious commentary. It is of course quite false. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America [not found] ` <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov> 1995-02-23 12:04 ` Robert Dewar @ 1995-02-23 16:13 ` Howard.Gilbert 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Howard.Gilbert @ 1995-02-23 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) In <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov>, "Paul H. Whittington" <phw@inel.gov> writes: > >An axiom in the marketing game goes something like this: > > In order to break into an existing stable market (C++ etc.) > a new product (Ada) must either offer twice the PERCEIVED > positive characteristics at the same price, when compared to > the existing products in the market, or offer the same > PERCEIVED positive characteristics at half the price. > The C++ market is hardly stable or established. Borland's class library is incompatible with MFC. The PC market is undergoing a transition from 16 to 32 bit compilers. The relationship between C++ and WIN32 system services is not clear. Mostly, people use the C subset of the C++ compilers. At a larger scale, there is a major uncertainty whether the bulk of development will use compiled languages like C++ or interpreted languages like Smalltalk. Will objects be internal like C++ or external (Corba). By analogy, there is a large installed base of ONC (Sun) RPC stuff, and it is largely free or at low cost. Yet the industry is moving (slowly) in the direction of DCE even at some cost and conversion because there is a need for security and better overall structure. This runs directly against the previous axiom, since DCE is not cheaper but has a more intangible benefit (security). > > The perception here is that the C++ market can provide, in a > timely manner, tools that, at the same time, provide for rapid > development of applications, with acceptable quality, and support > for the latest enabling technologies (OOP, OLE, MAPI, TAPI etc.) > Success is measured in Bindings, not in the base language. Put another way, Visual C++ 2.0 will succeed or fail based on how people react to the Microsoft Foundation Classes and the development environment, not based on C++ itself. I have no data, but I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the C++ users never build a single substantive class of their own, but just use vendor supplied class libraries. In the past, Ada has been limited by a lack of bindings to widely used systems. This despite the fact that keyword arguments with defaults makes such bindings much easier to develop in Ada than other languages. If people use base system services (WIN32, OS/2 API) then Ada can greatly simplify programming. If people expect to use massively repackaged services through objects (MFC) then it is more confusing. If they really are unable to deal with programming at all (VB, Visual Age) then the whole issue is moot. > > The fact is Ada development products pale in comparison with > their C++ peers, not to mention their Smalltalk and PASCAL > peers. We have to bring Ada development products at least up > to par with C++ or there is no hope. If Ada is really as > capable a language as we all like to think it is then we should > be able to provide considerably more positive characteristics. Its the secondary elements that tell. A lot of Ada compilers started out with no debugger at all. The next level is to have a dbx level of debugger. If people expect something along the lines of the MS Debugger or the IBM IPMD, then that looks cheezy. Since the other debuggers exist, and since they clearly support C++, the assumption is that the issue is generating the right object format. For example, if OS/2 GNAT moves over to EMX then it will inherit (at least in theory) the ability to be debugged with IPMD. The WIN32 equivalent is a bit muddier since it is not as clear who is in charge of that port. But hope is not completely lost. Drop Ada code in front of most "real world" programmers and they will say, "Oh, some Oracle PL/SQL" because that language is largely based on Ada statement syntax. But there is a lot of Oracle around, and people who would never consider "Ada" by name are learning much of the basic syntax indirectly without knowing it. --------------- Howard Gilbert -- Chief Mechanic at PC Lube and Tune Technical training on PC's, networks, and communications. Point Netscape or WebExplorer at http://pclt.cis.yale.edu/pclt/default.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America [not found] <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com> 1995-02-22 20:43 ` Robert I. Eachus [not found] ` <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov> @ 1995-02-23 21:54 ` bgirardo 1995-02-27 16:14 ` Michael M. Bishop 3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: bgirardo @ 1995-02-23 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) In <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes: > > Yet one more measure of the rejection of Ada in this country, and one >more statistic that AJPO in its mismanagement of Ada policy refuses to measure. >An article in the February 20, 1995, issue of Computerworld, page 129, on >how companies use technical proficiency tests listed the following table on >the top 10 computing skills tests being used by corporations: > > 1. Cobol > 2. C > 3. CICS (remaining text deleted). . . Not that I really care, but I just happened to notice that Neither Notes nor Fortran are in the above mentioned list. Does this mean I can remove all of my Notes servers from the field? Hey! Maybe I can tell my Engineers that Fortran has also been rejected and so they shouldn't be using that either . . . (flame bait, but what the heck). Seriously, please remember that certain technical skill come and go as fads (remember PL/1 or Multics?), and what today is felt to be a critical skill by an Human Resources department is tomorrow's legacy system. Try to remember that all of these tools have their own use, their own "Best Fit" and don't try to use a wrench as a screwdriver. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America [not found] <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com> ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1995-02-23 21:54 ` bgirardo @ 1995-02-27 16:14 ` Michael M. Bishop 3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Michael M. Bishop @ 1995-02-27 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com>, Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> wrote: > > Yet one more measure of the rejection of Ada in this country, and one >more statistic that AJPO in its mismanagement of Ada policy refuses to measure. >An article in the February 20, 1995, issue of Computerworld, page 129, on >how companies use technical proficiency tests listed the following table on >the top 10 computing skills tests being used by corporations: > > 1. Cobol > 2. C > 3. CICS > 4. DB2 > 5. C++ > 6. Visual Basic > 7. Oracle > 8. PowerBuilder > 9. Unix > 10. DOS > >Yet again another measure of the lack of substantial interest in Ada where >people are free to choose. And yet the DoD blindly refuses to measure such [snip] In many cases, these corporations are not free to choose their programming language. The reason that Cobol is number 1 is that there are literally billions of lines of legacy source code written in Cobol. Reengineering methods and technology have not yet matured sufficiently to give corporate decision makers the confidence to allow their large, important software assets to be reengineered into another language (and possibly design paradigm). Besides, even if AJPO and the DoD collected such statistics, what would you expect them to do about it? Force corporate America to adopt Ada? Corporations won't start using Ada until there are easily accessible Ada resources (i.e., people proficient in the language) available. That isn't the case yet, but with grass-roots efforts like Team Ada, it may be the case in the near future. (For example, from what I've read here, the number of universities teaching Ada as their first language is increasing at a steady rate.) -- | Mike Bishop | The opinions expressed here reflect | | bishopm@source.asset.com | those of this station, its management, | | Member: Team Ada | and the entire world. | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1995-02-27 16:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1995-02-22 20:59 Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America Chuck Bramlet 1995-02-23 17:24 ` David Moore 1995-02-24 2:56 ` Pug 156 1995-02-24 10:19 ` Daneil Wengelin 1995-02-25 19:44 ` Robert Dewar 1995-02-25 4:25 ` Robert Dewar [not found] <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com> 1995-02-22 20:43 ` Robert I. Eachus [not found] ` <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov> 1995-02-23 12:04 ` Robert Dewar 1995-02-23 16:13 ` Howard.Gilbert 1995-02-23 21:54 ` bgirardo 1995-02-27 16:14 ` Michael M. Bishop
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox