Learning Ada83

Learning Ada83

[Jim Gurtner]

I am a Computer Engineering student and am teaching myself Ada95 using
the book "Ada 95: The Craft of Object-Oriented Programming" by John
English.

I would like to be able to get a job in the defense industry when I
graduate.  Should I get a book on Ada83 and study it also?  Or does
studying Ada95 make one automatically fluent in Ada83?

Thanks in advance!

Jim Gurtner
(an Ada programmer wannabe!)
jgurtner@mindspring.com

Re: Learning Ada83

[Martin Dowie]

Jim Gurtner wrote:
> I am a Computer Engineering student and am teaching myself Ada95 using
> the book "Ada 95: The Craft of Object-Oriented Programming" by John
> English.
>
> I would like to be able to get a job in the defense industry when I
> graduate.  Should I get a book on Ada83 and study it also?  Or does
> studying Ada95 make one automatically fluent in Ada83?
>
> Thanks in advance!

I wouldn't bother - most new defence work (at least the stuff I'm doing) is
going throuh Ada95 compilers and a lot of legacy stuff is being ported.
There
is a 'porting guide' available (just google for it).

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Learning Ada83

[Nick Roberts]

On 2 Sep 2004 07:23:25 -0700, Jim Gurtner <jgurtner@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I am a Computer Engineering student and am teaching myself Ada95
> using the book "Ada 95: The Craft of Object-Oriented Programming"
> by John English.
>
> I would like to be able to get a job in the defense industry when
> I graduate.  Should I get a book on Ada83 and study it also?  Or
> does studying Ada95 make one automatically fluent in Ada83?

Ada 95 is nearly a true superset of Ada 83, so I think studying Ada
95 will enable you to understand Ada 83 programs well enough. I
doubt that there will be much origination of new software in Ada 83
in any shop anywhere nowadays.

You would probably find it instructive to look at the Ada 83
reference manual. The Ada Information Clearinghouse, at:

    http://www.adaic.org/

has an online copy of the ARM 83 (under the Ada Standards menu).

One significant point about the difference between Adas 83 and 95
is that the really object-oriented features were added in Ada 95.
However, Ada 83 did have packages and generics. It even had type
derivation (but not extension, so it wasn't very useful).

Actually, although learning Ada 95 is a very good idea for several
reasons, you ought to be advised (if you have not already) to learn
some other languages, at least to a basic level. Probably C and one
assembly language (not in detail) would be useful. Probably C++
would also be helpful (again, not necessarily in detail). Possibly
Java (but I'm not sure). Learning a little about some functional
language would also probably be enlightening to you, as would a
little knowledge of typical (relational) database systems.

Best of luck!

-- 
Nick Roberts

Re: Learning Ada83

[Kevin Cline]

"Nick Roberts" <nick.roberts@acm.org> wrote in message news:<opsdp2srmvp4pfvb@bram-2>...
> On 2 Sep 2004 07:23:25 -0700, Jim Gurtner <jgurtner@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> > I am a Computer Engineering student and am teaching myself Ada95
> > using the book "Ada 95: The Craft of Object-Oriented Programming"
> > by John English.
> >
> > I would like to be able to get a job in the defense industry when
> > I graduate.  Should I get a book on Ada83 and study it also?  Or
> > does studying Ada95 make one automatically fluent in Ada83?
> 
> Ada 95 is nearly a true superset of Ada 83, so I think studying Ada
> 95 will enable you to understand Ada 83 programs well enough. I
> doubt that there will be much origination of new software in Ada 83
> in any shop anywhere nowadays.
> 
> You would probably find it instructive to look at the Ada 83
> reference manual. The Ada Information Clearinghouse, at:
> 
>     http://www.adaic.org/
> 
> has an online copy of the ARM 83 (under the Ada Standards menu).
> 
> One significant point about the difference between Adas 83 and 95
> is that the really object-oriented features were added in Ada 95.
> However, Ada 83 did have packages and generics. It even had type
> derivation (but not extension, so it wasn't very useful).
> 
> Actually, although learning Ada 95 is a very good idea for several
> reasons, you ought to be advised (if you have not already) to learn
> some other languages, at least to a basic level. Probably C and one
> assembly language (not in detail) would be useful. Probably C++
> would also be helpful (again, not necessarily in detail). Possibly
> Java (but I'm not sure). Learning a little about some functional
> language would also probably be enlightening to you, as would a
> little knowledge of typical (relational) database systems.

It would also be useful and practical to learn one of the advanced
scripting languages like Perl or Python or Ruby.  Not only will you
learn some new styles of programming, but you will find them extremely
useful in automating repetitive tasks.  That sort of automation can
make huge differences in productivity.  While the average developer is
performing some 34-step process for the second time that day, and then
recovering from the problems caused by forgetting step 19, the expert
has run a script and is on to more creative work.

Re: Learning Ada83

[Marius Amado Alves]

> It would also be useful and practical to learn one of the advanced
> scripting languages like Perl or Python or Ruby....

Wow, they're *advanced* scripting languages now!  And I thought real man 
did all their scripting in Ada these days :-)  Now, less jestly, I find 
this a strange advice in this list.  If you want to go the Great Ball of 
Mud way why not just recommend PAM (PHP + Apache + MySQL) and get done 
with it?  (Sorry, every now and then I can't resist a good language battle.)

Advanced scripting languages (was: Learning Ada83)

[Björn Persson]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

>> It would also be useful and practical to learn one of the advanced
>> scripting languages like Perl or Python or Ruby....
> 
> Wow, they're *advanced* scripting languages now!

Sure, a *lot* more advanced than bat files. ;-)

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Advanced scripting languages (was: Learning Ada83)

[Randy Brukardt]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 662 bytes --]

"Bj�rn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil> wrote in message
news:7g2_c.102478$dP1.364156@newsc.telia.net...
Marius Amado Alves wrote:

>>> It would also be useful and practical to learn one of the advanced
>>> scripting languages like Perl or Python or Ruby....
>>
>> Wow, they're *advanced* scripting languages now!
>
>Sure, a *lot* more advanced than bat files. ;-)

That's funny, because if it's complicated enough that I can't write a batch
file to do it, I'll generally write it in Ada. Bat has If and Goto, and that
is enough for simple tasks. Beyond that, I want to be able to fix it and be
able to insure that it works...

                   Randy.

Re: Advanced scripting languages (was: Learning Ada83)

[Kevin Cline]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<taKdnQ2WrI_qn6TcRVn-sA@megapath.net>...
> "Bj�rn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil> wrote in message
> news:7g2_c.102478$dP1.364156@newsc.telia.net...
> Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> 
> >>> It would also be useful and practical to learn one of the advanced
> >>> scripting languages like Perl or Python or Ruby....
> >>
> >> Wow, they're *advanced* scripting languages now!
> >
> >Sure, a *lot* more advanced than bat files. ;-)
> 
> That's funny, because if it's complicated enough that I can't write a batch
> file to do it, I'll generally write it in Ada. Bat has If and Goto, and that
> is enough for simple tasks. Beyond that, I want to be able to fix it and be
> able to insure that it works...

Strong typing is handy, but it's not enough to ensure that something
works.  Ada has it's strengths, but it's not the tool for every job. 
Why would you spend an hour writing 50 or 100 lines of Ada code when
five minutes and a five-line Perl script would do the job?

Re: Learning Ada83

[Jim Gurtner]

Thank you all for clearing this up for me!

JimG

On 2 Sep 2004 07:23:25 -0700, jgurtner@mindspring.com (Jim Gurtner)
wrote:

>I am a Computer Engineering student and am teaching myself Ada95 using
>the book "Ada 95: The Craft of Object-Oriented Programming" by John
>English.
>
>I would like to be able to get a job in the defense industry when I
>graduate.  Should I get a book on Ada83 and study it also?  Or does
>studying Ada95 make one automatically fluent in Ada83?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>Jim Gurtner
>(an Ada programmer wannabe!)
>jgurtner@mindspring.com

Re: Advanced scripting languages (was: Learning Ada83)

[Randy Brukardt]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1689 bytes --]

"Kevin Cline" <kevin.cline@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e749549b.0409041928.67714f9b@posting.google.com...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:<taKdnQ2WrI_qn6TcRVn-sA@megapath.net>...
> > "Bj�rn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil> wrote in message
> > news:7g2_c.102478$dP1.364156@newsc.telia.net...
> > Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> >
> > >>> It would also be useful and practical to learn one of the advanced
> > >>> scripting languages like Perl or Python or Ruby....
> > >>
> > >> Wow, they're *advanced* scripting languages now!
> > >
> > >Sure, a *lot* more advanced than bat files. ;-)
> >
> > That's funny, because if it's complicated enough that I can't write a
batch
> > file to do it, I'll generally write it in Ada. Bat has If and Goto, and
that
> > is enough for simple tasks. Beyond that, I want to be able to fix it and
be
> > able to insure that it works...
>
> Strong typing is handy, but it's not enough to ensure that something
> works.  Ada has it's strengths, but it's not the tool for every job.
> Why would you spend an hour writing 50 or 100 lines of Ada code when
> five minutes and a five-line Perl script would do the job?

Because it would take a week to learn Perl well enough to use it that way.
And it is very rare that such a program is never used again; my one
experience with Perl showed it to be a write-only language (it took me two
weeks to successfully modify the code that runs the CVS on the ada-auth.org
site). And it is very rare that I need to write a 100 line throwaway
program; most of my code has much more permanence than that. Summary: It
doesn't make sense for me. YMMV.

                           Randy.

Re: Advanced scripting languages (was: Learning Ada83)

[Ken O. Burtch]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> "Kevin Cline" <kevin.cline@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e749549b.0409041928.67714f9b@posting.google.com...
> > "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:<taKdnQ2WrI_qn6TcRVn-sA@megapath.net>...
> > > "Bj�rn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil> wrote in message
> > > news:7g2_c.102478$dP1.364156@newsc.telia.net...
> > > Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> It would also be useful and practical to learn one of the advanced
> > > >>> scripting languages like Perl or Python or Ruby....
> > > >>
> > > >> Wow, they're *advanced* scripting languages now!
> > > >
> > > >Sure, a *lot* more advanced than bat files. ;-)
> > >
> > > That's funny, because if it's complicated enough that I can't write a
> batch
> > > file to do it, I'll generally write it in Ada. Bat has If and Goto, and
> that
> > > is enough for simple tasks. Beyond that, I want to be able to fix it and
> be
> > > able to insure that it works...
> >
> > Strong typing is handy, but it's not enough to ensure that something
> > works.  Ada has it's strengths, but it's not the tool for every job.
> > Why would you spend an hour writing 50 or 100 lines of Ada code when
> > five minutes and a five-line Perl script would do the job?
> 
> Because it would take a week to learn Perl well enough to use it that way.
> And it is very rare that such a program is never used again; my one
> experience with Perl showed it to be a write-only language (it took me two
> weeks to successfully modify the code that runs the CVS on the ada-auth.org
> site). And it is very rare that I need to write a 100 line throwaway
> program; most of my code has much more permanence than that. Summary: It
> doesn't make sense for me. YMMV.
> 
>                            Randy.

On a rare visit to comp.lang.ada, Ken writes...

The documentation for the AdaScript Business Shell
(http://www.pegasoft.ca/bush.html) contains several arguments against
tools like Perl in favor of Ada-based scripting languages, including:

1. Lower learning curve (a BUSH for loop is an Ada for loop)
2. Lower overall cost for maintaining a script project over its lifetime
3. Error messages that work for you, not against you
4. Better readability when debugging other people's scripts.
5. Sensible syntax shortcuts designed to be typo-resistant.
6. Better portability.
7. Code reuse.

When you look at the big picture, Perl projects increase costs and
development time.  As always, use the right tool for the job.  But my
experience with Perl development over the past 2 years has been
negative.  The idea of a 5 line Perl script to replace 100 lines of Ada
is a myth.

Ken B.
Author of "Linux Shell Scripting with Bash"

-- 
Ken O. Burtch: http://www.pegasoft.ca               : Pegasoft
Linux Shell Scripting with Bash / Business Shell    : R.R.#1
Bio: 38;Bsc,UI,Lang,Games;Toons,Elves,SF,Pizza;Xian : Jordan Station, ON
````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Canada L0R 1S0