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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-08 04:22:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <407535FE.3090102@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: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) References: <4073E83C.30402@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:22:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.2.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1081423378 209.165.2.194 (Thu, 08 Apr 2004 04:22:58 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 04:22:58 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6844 Date: 2004-04-08T11:22:58+00:00 List-Id: I'd disagree with some of your analysis, but not all of it. Common criticisms of Ada may not always be valid - but usually, behind them there is some real concern with being able to do a job efficiently and staying competitive. Approaching the manager or developer who has these concerns and saying "You're stupid" isn't going to get the desired result. Saying "I understand your concern and why it is important to you and we're working on improving that thing by doing XYZ..." probably will get a lot better results. I won't address everything here, but I'll say that there can be great additional costs and risks when "going against the heard" so a manager has very valid concerns if he chooses to use something that is not the common tool for the job. People's jobs and a company's future are on the line so failed experiments with the unknown can be incredibly disasterous. (Anyone out there want to volunteer to be fired if a switch to Ada doesn't go well?) Keep that in mind when being critical of the manager who wants to "follow the crowd". I agree that not all those concerns can be addressed by changing something in the language standard. What I am suggesting is that a) be *sensitive* to those concerns when looking at where the language needs to go and b) figure out if there is some way to do a better job of marketing Ada in areas that would help build up that larger user base so that the "follow the crowd" related concerns start to minimize. Just to illustrate: If Ada had determined to go out and provide - say - "Network Programming" utility to try to capture that market. When the manager of a network related job says "well, I'd be spitting against the wind, my programmers won't like it, etc...." then there is the comeback: "True, but look at all this clever stuff you get that will help you get your job done TWICE as fast as if you used C/C++/Java....." A major improvement in his efficiency will go a long way towards overcoming other objections. That's how Java got into a lot of projects - by being able to bring a lot more leverage to a specific type of programming. MDC Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > Marin David Condic wrote: > > >>A manager's reasons for selecting a language are not necessarily >>"supreme" - other than in the sense that ultimately, they have to make >>the decision and be responsible for the net effect so their reasons >>trump those of the technocrat. Also, often, the manager is operating on >>the recommendations of his staff - who are technical - and they have >>reasons to want to use something other than Ada as well. The manager's >>reasons are also not "unknowable". Usually, all you have to do is ask. > > > Someone as genius as Dr.Freud could probably understand their answers... > (:-)) > > >>When I try to persuade those above me or my customers that Ada is >>technically superior and they should choose it, I take time to listen >>when they say "Yes, but....." >> >>As it turns out, the reasons they have are - as you observe - not >>"technical" in nature. They are usually more practical business >>concerns. (And lest we all forget, business concerns are important >>because without paying attention to them, we're all out of jobs.) Try >>some of these: >> >>"People I interview for jobs don't know Ada and don't want to know Ada - >>they want to use languages they like & will be marketable. How do I hire >>the programmers I need?" > > > Firstly, it is his job to hire people. If it cannot do his job, he should > look for another. > > Secondly, time to time I interview people. It is true that almost nobody > knows Ada. But the truth also is that good people have no problems with > that. While bad people are bad in any language. Many managers tend to think > that any problem can be solved by doubling the resources. It is an > incompetence. > > >>"My staff doesn't like Ada and I don't want to force them to use >>something they don't like because they won't be as productive." > > > Honestly, I never met any opposition to Ada from the side of CS > professionals and programmers. It was always engineers grown to the > managing positions having no CS background. Though this cannot count as a > statistical observation, of course. > > >>"Industry in general ignores Ada so I can't get the tools I need - or I >>can only at a much higher cost..." > > > It is a silly argument, if one compares the price of a tool with the salary > of a programmer. The problem is that the advantage of higher productivity > is not directly seen. > > >>"Other, more popular languages, come with things that give me leverage >>in developing the product I need so I get to market sooner..." > > > They also make me dependent on third party products, which quality is > questionable. A wrong choice may lead to project collapse. [I saw one] A > certification of all alien software components is very expensive, > unreliable and delays the project. > > >>"I've already got existing software in Language X and all the related >>things I have to connect to are in Language X, so why do I want to incur >>the extra cost of using some other language?" > > > This is a real argument. Many software houses have home grown libraries etc. > So I am absolutely on your side, when you are promoting a larger standard > Ada environment. That could really change the situation here. > > I would also like to see JGNAT revived and more progress in A#. > > >>'Ada is a dying language and I need to use something that is going to >>have a future..." > > > I do not think that a manager really cares. Once the project is done, it is > no matter whether Ada will die or not. > > >>There are obviously more but the important thing is that these concerns >>are *REAL* and *VALID* - if not *TECHNICAL*. So if Ada doesn't want to >>just slowly go down the toilet, it ought to look to addressing the >>concerns of that manager voicing those objections. Telling him he's >>wrong and stupid is only going to get you dismissed as a kook because he >>*knows* his concerns are legetimate and important. Why not address those >>concerns and take the language in a new direction that might start >>alleviating some of them? > > > If you reread arguments of your "virtual" manager you will see that most of > them are related the view on Ada. Improvements of Ada (though I wished > them) cannot change that. One need a great promotion campaign. One need Ada > being taught in universities. > -- ====================================================================== 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 ======================================================================