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: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-20 04:38:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: why ada is so unpopular ? References: <49cbf610.0401170627.79c3dfe5@posting.google.com> <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com> <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com> <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:38:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.67.37 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1074602325 165.247.67.37 (Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:38:45 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:38:45 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4569 Date: 2004-01-20T12:38:45+00:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: > > Well, who would be in charge of an Ada GUI and develop it actively and > not every 10-15 years ? > Who's in charge of Java's GUI? Do they update it only every 10 to 15 years? Why is it that Java can do it but Ada can't? (Besides lack of will.) Here's the point: Java can find a way to react quickly to a changing world and provide developers with tools to help them do their jobs with greater speed. Ada can't because of lack of will to do so. Who wins? (Hint: the answer is Java. ;-) > > Sure, but there are other things that the GUI to show that. My problem > is that there are X GUIs and Y OSes out there already. > How did Java manage to get a GUI that seems to be useful across a number of platforms? How did it succeed in something that looks so hopeless? Realistically, a GUI needs to support Windows and X-Windows (across a few different flavors of Unix) and it can cover 90% of the market. The rest? You say "Here is the GUI library in source - go make it work for yourself if you have to use something off-the-wall..." Ada has this "Portability Fetish" that often cripples it. "If we can't make a feature work on everything from a PC to a digital toaster then it can't be part of the language!" We solve that with some kind of library external to the standard that exists in source and works on some stated number of platforms and where it doesn't work - don't try to use it. The problem, of course, is to get the vendors to actually think that Ada *needs* something like this and exhibit the will & leadership to get it. > > Well if you look at the timespan for developing Gtk you'll see it isn't > a trivial task. Making a binding is, however, much more trivial. > I never said a GUI was a trivial task. What I said was that the C programmers are always going to get it *first* and its going to look the way *C programmers* want it to look. The Ada programmers will always get it later and will have to struggle with the usual C metaphors. As long as Ada depends on bindings for this sort of thing, Ada programmers are sucking hind tit. Developers ask themselves "Do I want to suck hind tit?" Generally the answer is "No!" and they go develop in C/C++ or Java. So long as Ada is in that ugly position, developers will stay away from it in droves. They'll go where they can get the most bang for the buck - and for the most part, that's not Ada. > > Yes I agree. But I want a container library +++ first. > I have absolutely no objection to a container library. However, we barely see any real will to get even *that* as a standard with the vendors lacking the leadership to get in front of the problem and say "Here's the answer that everyone should start to agree on..." I suppose if they want to lose the compiler-wars, that's up to them. Realistically, developers can look at Java and (to some extent) C++ and see that they are getting a whole lot more leverage by way of a library than they do with Ada. Your average uncommitted developer is going to see all that leverage and ask "So why is it I should go with some obscure, niche programming language that offers me less in the way of tools and I have to struggle by being incompatible with the whole rest of the universe? What do I get for this? An unquantified cost savings in maintenance ten years down the line and a few less bugs? My software doesn't live that long and I can tolerate a few bugs and what I gain in development leverage will easily outweigh the cost of fixing the bugs if I really need to." Its basically a no-brainer that is consistently demonstrated over and over again by the fact that developers are using languages other than Ada. The question is simple: "Do you want Ada to be around in ten years with a healthy, large user base?" If you'll settle for Ada being some niche language used in a few antique projects (like Jovial?) then it certainly can have that much strength. But if you want Ada to be a "Player" in the language market, then Ada had better start finding a way to offer *more* leverage to the developer than does its competitors. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================