Re: Weakness of Ada is expensive / security / etc. ? Anything else?

[Serge Robyns <serge.robyns@gmail.com>]

On Monday, 20 July 2015 20:35:37 UTC+3, Shark8  wrote:
> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 3:52:03 AM UTC-6, Serge Robyns wrote:
> > 
> > I'm surprised that the AdaCore GNATCOLL SQL library has no "standard" support for Oracle, although it was already there in GNADE from which GNATCOLL SQL was build.  I'm ok to work and contribute back, but this removes me from my own project.  Moreover, the code is quite "shaky" and not resilient at all, which came as a bad surprise to me or a language like ADA.
> 
> GNATCOLL is terrible -- I've *never* gotten it to build w/ DB support and properly link... and that's even after the massive inconvenience of cygwin (needed because the blasted project needs .configure and make).
> 
> What's doubly disappointing about that is that GNATCOLL is presented by AdaCore (which presents itself as the public face of Ada) as one of the core useful-libraries and DOESN'T take advantage of Ada's nice portability instead relying on the crap-pile that is make and .configure even when they have/use GPR-files to represent a project themselves. (i.e. not using your own tools is a vote *against* your own product.)

I join you in this double disappointment.  Trying to make things work with ORM requires trial and error to understand what part of the Python script doesn't like your database configuration.  It took my days to make a useful session using sqlite, dropping some features supposed to be.  Yes, I was shocked by crashes without any explanation of tools to be used in high reliable environments.  And this as you said from the "face" of Ada.
 
> If you adopt the "eat your own dogfood" position, you have an incentive to make that a quality system, fix bugs, and make it easier to use.

But who will then do the coding on the project itself :-(