Re: Ada vs C++ / the choice

Re: Ada vs C++ / the choice

[Bob Burch]

From Ted Holden, HTE:
 
..........................................................
 
 
From: Ron Guilmette: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
 
>>C++ actually IS the language Ada was supposed to be and never will be, the
>>main language which DOD (and a lot of other organizations) need.
 
>I used to be a big Ada fan.  Now I'm a big C++ fan.  Nonetheless, I
>have to point out the error in the above statement.
 
>C++ *is not* the language Ada was supposed to be.  Specifically, Ada is
>*standardized* while C++ is not (yet).  That can be good and bad.
>Actually, this is probably the main reason that I now prefer C++ to Ada.
>Everything about Ada (in particular, the warts) was set in concrete long ago.
>In the case of C++, the language is still evolving and there is still time
>to prevent it from becomming another hoplessly ugly beast.
 
I meant simply that C++ appears capable of providing users the
object-oriented paradigm, generating fast and efficient code for every
kind of computer, imbedded system to mainframe, handling every kind of
application, tank gun to DBMS to video-game or whatever, and efficiently use
ordinary, cheap PCs and UNIX systems as development platforms.  This or
something entirely like this was the stated goal of Ada from the
beginning.
 
That Ada itself represents little more than a failed attempt in this
direction is becoming more and more evident.  Our industry turns
completely over every three or four years or so;  most of what you see around
you now will be gone in four years.  The fact that one or two almost
acceptable Ada compilers are just now becoming visible after ten years of
effort means, to me at least, that Ada has only missed it by seven years.
 
In a couple of years, virtually all normal computers will be running
UNIX.  Micro managers will be seeing 386-based desktop machines with
applications for which DOS no longer will suffice, and virtually all
mid-sized machines, database servers etc., which run UNIX.  The choice
for an OS for the desktop machines will be simple:  UNIX, and ordinary
UUCP connections between the desktops and the mid-sized machines, or OS/2
and forever endure the pain of dealing with the two dissimilar worlds.
This lack of portability/connectivity will kill OS/2.  And, the fact that
Ada cannot live happily with UNIX, should alone suffice to kill Ada.
 
The tale concerning Ada/UNIX comes back the same way and sounds the same
no matter which way you turn your ear.  There was the article in the Aug.
1 issue of Government Computer News, there are the comments from the Nov.
RICIS symposium ("Ada on UNIX doesn't work"), and, to me at least, aside
from and in addition to my own experiences with UNIX/Ada, it sounds
about the same no matter who I talk to.
 
The existence of specialized machines for Ada development (Rational), the
articles you read calling for new generations of imbedded chips designed
specifically for Ada, the nature of Ada systems which you see for the PC
(LIM board, 2 meg DRAM, $3500 price tag) all speak of the same basic
failure;  the "do everything" language simply seems all too limited in
what it can do and what it can do it on, and seems to take entirely too
much of a Herculean effort to do anything.
 
The state of other-than-UNIX Ada implementations may be judged from
recent articles in Defense Computing, Sept.-Oct. 88 and Journal of
Electronic Defense, which read like indictments.
 
Bjarne Stroustrup was quoted in an issue of Byte this summer to the effect
that Ada was the language of the future, that there was no other language
which the government was willing to throw billions of dollars at.  This
is a dimmer view than I feel the circumstances justify.  I believe Mr.
Stroustrup et. al. have something the government needs, and might possibly
be sold on.
          
Ted Holden
HTE
 
 

Ada/UNIX

[Karl Nyberg]

In article <206@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes (among other
stuff):

>The tale concerning Ada/UNIX comes back the same way and sounds the same
>no matter which way you turn your ear.  There was the article in the Aug.
>1 issue of Government Computer News, there are the comments from the Nov.
>RICIS symposium ("Ada on UNIX doesn't work"), and, to me at least, aside
>from and in addition to my own experiences with UNIX/Ada, it sounds
>about the same no matter who I talk to.

(1) I guess you haven't read the article in GCN to which you refer.  Either
that, or you weren't interested enough to check the facts.

(2) Or perhaps you haven't talked to enough people.

The GCN article (a widely respected professional computer journal, you will
note*) mentioned (if I remember correctly) that the requirements for Ada,
UNIX, and REAL TIME software FOR A PARTICULAR APPLICATION were such that all
the requirements could not be fully met in their current environment.  Ada
and UNIX were chosen (and used) for the MIS portions of the application as
best I can recall.

Many of the Ada compiler vendors, some of whose products are even written in
Ada and run on UNIX, are developing and marketing their products quite
successfully.  They wouldn't be doing so if their customers weren't using
their products profitably.  The list of companies developing commercial
applications in Ada, and on UNIX, continues to grow.  These include database
management systems, editors, and the like.  For more information on the
widespread use of Ada, call the Ada Information Clearinghouse (703)685-1477
and ask for their Ada in Use Database.  For more information on particularly
commercial applications, contact Dave Dikel, ddikel@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu,
(703)847-6741, Chairman of the SIGAda Commercial Applications Users Group.

Or (3) perhaps you're afraid that Ada WILL succeed, and that you are already
so far behind the competitive power curve that the only way you can salvage
your situation is to try to drag Ada down and hope that it will go away.
Well, it won't.  As you quote Stroustrup, Ada is here to stay.

But enough proseletyzing.  If you don't want to hear it, you won't.  Ten
years ago, you might have been one of those completely uninterested in UNIX,
and now you claim the ability to look into the future where it is concerned.
Far be it from me to try breaking through the brick wall.  I've got Ada code
to complete for my VAX/ULTRIX and PC/DOS machines to get my products to
market and continue to make money.  It's a better way to spend my time...

-- Karl --

* As an aside, I have had a number of articles published by GCN (and BYTE,
and Ada Letters), so I don't intend this as a slur on the paper.  However,
PLEASE consider their purpose.  It's not like their articles have been
reviewed for technical details and indepth understanding.  Such publications
"sell" by grabbing their readers attention with bold headlines.

Re: Ada vs C++ / the choice

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

Actually, algol-68 is the language that ADA was supposed to be....;-)