Re: Ada -- a popular language?

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Stanley Allen]

Centaury wrote:
> 
> It seems that Ada is losing out to modern languages like C++. I don't seem
> to find any wide usage of Ada programming language in the region of South
> East Asia (South East Asians, verify this!).
> [slice]
> Please mail replies to :
> utopian@pl.jaring.my

Isn't it unusual to see this question, and on the
same day see another posting from the same country
with the signature below?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Adrian, B.Y. Hoe   VP, Business Development   Email : byHoe@quantum.pc.my
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>                                member of Team-Ada in Malaysia

Also, these are the first messages I've seen on c.l.a. from
Malaysia.  Let's hope it's the beginning of a trend.

--
Stanley Allen
mailto:sallen@ghg.net
mailto:s_allen@hso.link.com

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

<<If Ada is so powerful and versatile, why isn't everybody opting to use it,
instead of the much complicated (but much preferred) C language?>>

It is an interesting commentary on how people are taught that the only
things that the writer can imagine as constituting "better" for a programming
language are power and versatility ...

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Dave Wood]

Centaury wrote:
> 
> It seems that Ada is losing out to modern languages like C++. 

It seems that as Ada 95 post-dated C++ and Ada 83 post-dated C,
Ada is the more modern language.

> I don't seem
> to find any wide usage of Ada programming language in the region of South
> East Asia (South East Asians, verify this!).

As someone else pointed out, we know at least that Lexical Integration 
is using ObjectAda in Malaysia!  Ada is also used in Japan, Singapore,
India, Australia, etc.

> And there are no major software companies developing Ada (like C++, Pascal,
> Cobol, developed by Microsoft, Borland and several other big players).

I didn't know Microsoft made Pascal and COBOL compilers.  Is that
true?

Companies like Aonix and Rational like to think of themselves as
major (some even make the front page of the Wall Street Journal when
their stock value tanks...), but if you're going to be serious
about this point you certainly can't use Borland in the same
breath as Microsoft, which probably has a longer balance sheet than
Malaysia.  Borland isn't much bigger these days than those rogue Ada
companies, and is shrinking at an alarming rate while giving a textbook
example of how to sell compilers for the "most popular" languages (C,
C++, and Java) on the most popular platform (Windows) and still lose
money hand-over-fist.  They lost $65,000,000 in the last nine months
of 1996 alone!

Besides, it isn't the size that matters, it's the quality of your
assets. 
At least that's what my wife keeps assuring me.

> Also, what does Ada have that other programming languages don't have? and
> what do other programming languages have that Ada doesn't have?

I'm sure somebody will point you to Home of the Brave Ada Programmers
for this kind of material.

> If Ada is so powerful and versatile, why isn't everybody opting to use it,
> instead of the much complicated (but much preferred) C language?

You should be glad that not everyone is using Ada.  Using it gives you 
a tangible advantage over your less perceptive peers.  :-)

But, Ada is used more than you might think.  While C is used on vastly 
more projects, Ada tends to be used on large, complex, mission-critical,
and safety-critical projects.  You're less likely to find it unless
you're looking in the right places, although products such as ObjectAda,
GNAT, RR, etc., are now resulting in considerably more widespread use of 
Ada in academia and among smaller projects and hobbyists.

Sit back and watch C/C++ hit the brick wall of Java over the next couple
of years.  The stability of Ada can be a blessing.

-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Dave Wood]

Centaury wrote:
> 
> It seems that Ada is losing out to modern languages like C++. 

It seems that as Ada 95 post-dated C++ and Ada 83 post-dated C,
Ada is the more modern language.

> I don't seem
> to find any wide usage of Ada programming language in the region of South
> East Asia (South East Asians, verify this!).

As someone else pointed out, we know at least that Lexical Integration 
is using ObjectAda in Malaysia!  Ada is also used in Japan, Singapore,
India, Australia, etc.

> And there are no major software companies developing Ada (like C++, Pascal,
> Cobol, developed by Microsoft, Borland and several other big players).

I didn't know Microsoft made Pascal and COBOL compilers.  Is that
true?

Companies like Aonix and Rational like to think of themselves as
major (some even make the front page of the Wall Street Journal when
their stock value tanks...), but if you're going to be serious
about this point you certainly can't use Borland in the same
breath as Microsoft, which probably has a longer balance sheet than
Malaysia.  Borland isn't much bigger these days than those rogue Ada
companies, and is shrinking at an alarming rate while giving a textbook
example of how to sell compilers for the "most popular" languages (C,
C++, and Java) on the most popular platform (Windows) and still lose
money hand-over-fist.  They lost $65,000,000 in the last nine months
of 1996 alone!

Besides, it isn't the size that matters, it's the quality of your
assets. 
At least that's what my wife keeps assuring me.

> Also, what does Ada have that other programming languages don't have? and
> what do other programming languages have that Ada doesn't have?

I'm sure somebody will point you to Home of the Brave Ada Programmers
for this kind of material.

> If Ada is so powerful and versatile, why isn't everybody opting to use it,
> instead of the much complicated (but much preferred) C language?

You should be glad that not everyone is using Ada.  Using it gives you 
a tangible advantage over your less perceptive peers.  :-)

But, Ada is used more than you might think.  While C is used on vastly 
more projects, Ada tends to be used on large, complex, mission-critical,
and safety-critical projects.  You're less likely to find it unless
you're looking in the right places, although products such as ObjectAda,
GNAT, RR, etc., are now resulting in considerably more widespread use of 
Ada in academia and among smaller projects and hobbyists.

Sit back and watch C/C++ hit the brick wall of Java over the next couple
of years.  The stability of Ada can be a blessing.

-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[John McCabe]

Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com> wrote:

>Centaury wrote:
>> 
>> It seems that Ada is losing out to modern languages like C++. 
>
>It seems that as Ada 95 post-dated C++ and Ada 83 post-dated C,
>Ada is the more modern language.

I read something the other day that said C++ was fourteen years old
yet still not mature. That makes it approximately the same age as Ada
83.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Nick Roberts]

John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<334e73be.939766@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com> wrote:
> 
> >Centaury wrote:
> >> 
> >> It seems that Ada is losing out to modern languages like C++. 
> >
> >It seems that as Ada 95 post-dated C++ and Ada 83 post-dated C,
> >Ada is the more modern language.
> 
> I read something the other day that said C++ was fourteen years old
> yet still not mature. That makes it approximately the same age as Ada
> 83.


On the other hand, to be fair, C++ is a rapidly evolving language -
evolving as we speak - whereas Ada 95 is fixed, and likely to remain fixed
for some time to come. I think advantages and disadvantages can be picked
out of both situations: the stability of Ada is an obvious advantage, but
it will age, just as Ada 83 aged; the transience of C++ causes headaches
for programmers and implementors alike, but C++ is, and will continue to
be, incorporating new advances (and indeed fashions) in programming
science.

I believe Ada is a better programming language - not just better for some
things, but better entirely - than C++ (and I do know both intimately - I
use C++ all the time for commercial projects). That commercial forces are
able to promote C++ so successfully I find an abomination. Engineering is
not supposed to be like that. All we Adaphiles can do is to keep gently
promoting Ada in our different ways, and hope that nature eventually is
allowed to take its course.

The true reason why Ada is not a very popularly used programming language
has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the language, nor with the
preferences of programmers. It is almost entirely to do with the decisions
taken at a high level by managers whose decisions have little to do with
technicalities (but rather the safety of their jobs, promotional prospects,
etc). We must keep trying to convince them to specify Ada. In some cases,
lives really do depend on it. We may laugh about Airbus (and others), but
the relatives of the victims of those disasters aren't laughing.

Engineering is an honourable profession. Engineers who build apartment
blocks, or bridges, or airplanes, don't shrug their shoulders and say "oh
well, it may not be well built, but never mind, eh?" They take a pride in
what they do, and they know that the quality of what they do is important.
We need to spread this message to programmers, and their bosses.

Finally, it is a simple engineering principle that your work is only as
good as your tools. Ada is the better tool.

Now for a beer ...

Nick.

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Dale Stanbrough]

Bill Keen writes:

"If they'd given away free Ada compilers with every Unix box sold things
 might have developed on different lines. These days we can use GNAT for
 free, but not for commercial work. Customers tend to demand a validation
 certificate, and validated compilers still tend to cost a lot more than
 the competition."

Wow, so many mistakes in so few words!

If customers "demand a validation certificate" why would they want to use
another language where the compilers are not validated? So this makes no
diff. to language choice.

...and then the really funny...

	'we can't use GNAT for commercial work'

Chortle, chortle. Too many beers Bill? :-) (really either at best 
total ignorance of the GNU license, at worst idealogically driven fibs).

...and then validated compilers (e.g. the free GNAT compiler) cost more
than the competition. If this is true, Bill, could you tell me who the
competition is? They obviously pay me to use their compiler! :-)


Dale

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Bill Keen]

In article <01bc479c$dc234320$22f482c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>, Nick
Roberts <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes
>The true reason why Ada is not a very popularly used programming language
>has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the language, nor with the
>preferences of programmers. It is almost entirely to do with the decisions
>taken at a high level by managers whose decisions have little to do with
>technicalities 

The slow takeoff of Ada also has to do with the cost of compilers. In
the late eigthies we used to buy Ada cross compilers for many times the
cost of the PCs we ran them on, and these were high spec PCs for those
day. And the cost of compilers is dictated by mandatory validation.
Apart from hiring a team of hotshots to write the compiler, and paying
for the initial validation, the compiler vendors have to retain them to
revalidate each time the ACVC is reissued. In the eighties this was an
annual event, though it relaxed after 1991 (I think) to every 18 month.
(I don't know the frequency of ACVC 2.x updates for Ada 95.) But the
competition has no such handicap. 

If they'd given away free Ada compilers with every Unix box sold things
might have developed on different lines. These days we can use GNAT for
free, but not for commercial work. Customers tend to demand a validation
certificate, and validated compilers still tend to cost a lot more than
the competition. 

-- 
Bill Keen

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

David said

<<Just think what would have happened if IBM had bundled Ada with the
early PCs rather than microsoft Basic!>>

I see no evidence that the pathetic basic interpretor included in the PC
(which was there to support stand alone games in diskless configurations)
had any significant effect on the program development community.

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

Dave Smith said

<<I should have made a reference to MSDOS instead of basic>>

Then you would have been completely wrong. MSDOS (or PCDOS as it came to
be known -- the IBM version of MSDOS) were NOT bundled with the PC. You
had to buy them separately. The first version of DOS cost $40 (I remember
well having to buy it separately!)

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Nick Roberts]

Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in article
<dewar.861335510@merv>...
> Dave Smith said
> 
> <<I should have made a reference to MSDOS instead of basic>>
> 
> Then you would have been completely wrong. MSDOS (or PCDOS as it came to
> be known -- the IBM version of MSDOS) were NOT bundled with the PC. You
> had to buy them separately. The first version of DOS cost $40 (I remember
> well having to buy it separately!)


To expand slightly, it came 'bundled' with CP/M, the original
multi-platform microcomputer operating system, made by a company called
Digital Research. How fortunes change. How many people know about Digital
Research nowadays?

Nick.

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

Nick said (of the original PC)

<<To expand slightly, it came 'bundled' with CP/M, the original
multi-platform microcomputer operating system, made by a company called
Digital Research. How fortunes change. How many people know about Digital
Research nowadays?>>

Nope, that is completely wrong, I have my original receipts for my PC-1,
bought on the 4th day after the announcement if you want proof.

The PC I bought came with NO operating system, and when I asked about this
(in the IBM store -- they were in the retail business then), I was opinted
to a shelf of operating systems.

I had a choice of 3

MS-DOS for $40
CPM for $200
UCSD Pascal (don't know pprice)

I bought the first two, and never oopened the CPM (I still have the
shrink wrapped package -- perhaps it is a collectors item :-)

Nick, either you did not buy a machine at that time, or your memory
is failing you ....

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Byron]

Dave Smith wrote:
> 
> Bill Keen <billy@marnhull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >
> >The slow takeoff of Ada also has to do with the cost of compilers. In
> 
> True!
> >
> >If they'd given away free Ada compilers with every Unix box sold things
> >might have developed on different lines.
> 
> Just think what would have happened if IBM had bundled Ada with the
> early PCs rather than microsoft Basic!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> David H Smith               email(W): mailto:david.h.smith@gecm.com
> GEC-Marconi CIS             email(H): mailto:dave@charon.demon.co.uk
> Addlestone,                      Tel: +44 1932 824438
> Surrey, UK                       Fax: +44 1932 924723
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2Gb hard drive would have been invented a lot sooner? :-)

Seriously, I'd really like to see Aonix's stuff in a retail shop. Under
100$
sounds real cheap to me, or even $75 or so for Dr. Feldman's book that
includes ActivAda.

-- 
Byron

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

Byron says

<<Seriously, I'd really like to see Aonix's stuff in a retail shop. Under
100$
sounds real cheap to me, or even $75 or so for Dr. Feldman's book that
includes ActivAda..>>

I have seen the Walnut Creek Ada CD ROM in a retail store, I can't remember
the price, but it was much less than that, and that CD ROM includes many
versions of GNAT, including the nicely packaged one from Mike Feldman
that runs on DOS with a beginners type interface.

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Michael Feldman]

In article <dewar.861369698@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

>I have seen the Walnut Creek Ada CD ROM in a retail store, I can't remember
>the price, but it was much less than that, and that CD ROM includes many
>versions of GNAT, including the nicely packaged one from Mike Feldman
>that runs on DOS with a beginners type interface.

The 2-disk CD ROM set from Walnut Creek retails for $39.95. I have
also seen it in computer stores here in the DC area. I'm pretty sure
Computer Literacy Bookshop sells it; you can also order it direct from
Walnut Creek, info@cdrom.com or http://www.cdrom.com. A new edition
just came out in March.

The "nicely packaged one" [GNAT] for DOS is also available by ftp
ftp://ftp.seas.gwu.edu/pub/ada/ez2load, as well as from PAL, NYU,
and all the various mirror sites. As an indication of its accessibility
and (I guess) popularity, our ftp server statistics at GW show 50-100
copies of ez2load being transferred per week or so.

This same "package" is on the CD; indeed, we really created the package
for the CD. 

I don't think anyone can claim anymore that price is an entry barrier
to using Ada; as has been pointed out ad nauseam, GNAT is in wide use
for both exploratory and "serious" use on nearly every platform.

Mike Feldman
i

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Dave Smith]

mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) wrote:
>In article <dewar.861369698@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>>I have seen the Walnut Creek Ada CD ROM in a retail store, I can't remember
>>the price, but it was much less than that, and that CD ROM includes many
>>versions of GNAT, including the nicely packaged one from Mike Feldman
>>that runs on DOS with a beginners type interface.
>
>The 2-disk CD ROM set from Walnut Creek retails for $39.95. I have
>also seen it in computer stores here in the DC area. I'm pretty sure
>Computer Literacy Bookshop sells it; you can also order it direct from
>Walnut Creek, info@cdrom.com or http://www.cdrom.com. A new edition
>just came out in March.
>

I bought the August one last september, for =A312 sterling. It wasn`t
even in a sale.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
David H Smith               email(W): mailto:david.h.smith@gecm.com
GEC-Marconi CIS             email(H): mailto:dave@charon.demon.co.uk     
Addlestone,                      Tel: +44 1932 824438
Surrey, UK                       Fax: +44 1932 924723
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Keith Thompson]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]


In <5jfles$3i9@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com> Dave Smith <david.h.smith@gecm.com> writes:
[referring to the Walnut Creek Ada CD ROM]
> I bought the August one last september, for =A312 sterling. It wasn`t
> even in a sale.

If this seems confusing, it's because the pound sterling symbol was
converted to the 7-bit ASCII string "=A3" by a MIME converter somewhere.
So, he's saying he paid �12 sterling, (12 pounds sterling), currently
about $19.60 US.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@sd.aonix.com <http://www.aonix.com> <*>
TeleSo^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsy^H^H^H^H Thomson Softw^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Aonix
5040 Shoreham Place, San Diego, CA, USA, 92122-5989
"Humor is such a subjective thing." -- Cartagia

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

<<If this seems confusing, it's because the pound sterling symbol was
converted to the 7-bit ASCII string "=A3" by a MIME converter somewhere.
So, he's saying he paid M-#12 sterling, (12 pounds sterling), currently
about $19.60 US.>>

It would be helpful if everyone would realize that going to the upper
half of Latin-1 is likely to cause such troubles -- we often get
bug reports that are totally destroyed by these strange =xx sequences.

If you are posting to international newsgroups, it is a good idea to
stick to the lower half of the Latin-1 set (i.e. what used to be called
ASCII in the old days :-)

Latin1

[Peter Hermann]

Robert Dewar (dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu) wrote:
: If you are posting to international newsgroups, it is a good idea to
: stick to the lower half of the Latin-1 set (i.e. what used to be called
: ASCII in the old days :-)

yes. Latin1 is a promising standard but not yet well supported
(dos, unix, gnat etc.). I am just grabbing for my flame-suit ...    :-)

An interesting alternative for today's status quo
which I am going to favour is html. It can be handled by our age-old 
standardized 7-bit-ascii and has a lot of additional advantages
such as easy conversion to postscript documents by good web browsers.

--
Peter Hermann  Tel:+49-711-685-3611 Fax:3758 ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de
Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen
Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Michael Feldman]

In article <3354C73E.54B@lmtas.lmco.com>,
Byron  <Byron.B.Kauffman@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:

>Seriously, I'd really like to see Aonix's stuff in a retail shop. Under
>100$
>sounds real cheap to me, or even $75 or so for Dr. Feldman's book that
>includes ActivAda.

You're almost right. First of all, we're talking about Aonix _ObjectAda_
(Ada 95!), not ActivAda. Second, the book to which you're referring
currently retails for around $50. (in the US; I dunno about overseas
pricing, but AW says it should be about the same in local currency).

(Since it's illegal for a publisher to fix retail US prices, this 
is an approximate but educated guess.:-))

Further, while AW was originally going to do a version of the book
with the Aonix CD and one without, they've decided to drop the
"without" version and just bundle the CD with all copies. Anyone
ordering under the original ISBN will get the new ISBN now, with
the CD included.

The original "Academic Ada" plan would have restricted distribution of
that CD to academic bookstores, but the Aonix ObjectAda Special Edition
(which is what "Academic Ada" has become, essentially) does not have
such a restriction. Since Borders and other large chains have been
carrying the CD-less version since it cameout in Feb 1996, I figure
the with-CD version will find its way there as well.

The ISBN you want is 0-201-30485-6. For details, look at AW's website
for the book, 

http://www.aw.com/cseng/authors/feldman/cs1-ada2e/cs1-ada2e.html

If you're curious how the book might be used in classes, check out
the instructors manual at

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/faculty/mfeldman/cs1-im

To see a full set of course materials from my CS1 and CS2 courses
(course outline, project assignments, code, etc.) see

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/classes/cs1
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/classes/cs2

Just settin' the record straight...

Mike Feldman

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

Dave Smith writes:

 "Ahem! The GPL states that:

  This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
  proprietary programs.
 
  But the real point is that many business` do not like using shareware,
  pd software, copyleft software. Yes I know we can get
  support from companies
  like Cygnus, I agree that GNAT is a very high quality compiler, but it
  still does not get accepted by every company."

Robert replies

The reference to the GPL is confused here. The restriction is only
against trying to make (for example) GNAT itself proprietary, or
incorporating GNAT itself into a proprietary compiler system. For
example, some company wanting to put the GNAT front end together
with a proprietary back end (several companies have been interested
in trying to do that) would likely run afoul of the GPL.

BUT! If you want to use GNAT (for example) to generate a proprietary
program, no problem at all -- lots of companies are doing this.

As for shareware/pd/copyleft, it is obfuscation to link these together
that way, there is really not much connection.

The point of free software is not its price, which may or may not be
zero (there is nothing to stop anyone from selling free software,
and it is done all the time, e.g. Linux from Redhat). The issue in
free software is the availability of sources, and the freedom to
modify and redistribute.

It is often the case that public domain software, shareware, freeware
etc is as far from being free software as any Microsoft product. I
personally stay away from unsupported software of any kind, but that's
the kind of decision people have to make for themselves in their own
contexts.

As for the issue of whether GNAT gets accepted by every company, there are
many reasons why a given software product may or may not be accepted. It
is certainly true that there are cases where management confuses free
software and freeware, and not surprisingly as a result of this confusion
is suspicious of GNAT. As I mention above, I avoid freeware type stuff
that is unsupported completely and I syumpathize with the reaction.

However, we find many companies that start with this attitude change it
when they understand the facts, and many large companies *are* using
GNAT today

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies.

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Robert Dewar]

Dave Smith said

<<It is a sad fact that many customers, especially in the defence world,
won't touch anything even faintly associated with "pd". It`s probably
a case that they are spending many millions and expect us to spend
nearly as much to develop their products.>>

Please note that GNAT is not public domain. It is copyrighted and the
copyright holders will vigorously defend this copyright if it is violated!

I know that people who don't understand things clearly often get mixed
up between the concepts of public domain, freeware, shareware, and free
software, and that is understandable, but it is an important distinction!

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Tom Wheeley]

In article <dewar.861244012@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu "Robert Dewar" writes:

> In any case, I do not think it is credible to claim that validation adds
> a huge amount to the cost of Ada compilers ...

It shouldn't do, but due to the nature of Ada, or rather the comon uses of
Ada nowadays, validation adds a lot to the *value* of the compiler, and as
such can command a much higher monetary cost.

-- 
:sb)

Re: Ada -- a popular language?

[Ingemar Ragnemalm]

Centaury wrote:
> 
> If Ada is so powerful and versatile, why isn't everybody opting to use it,
> instead of the much complicated (but much preferred) C language?

Any time someone makes a great product that promises to make work
different and
easier, it threatens the oldtimers, who will backtalk it to no end. If
something
is complicated to use, easy to mess up, it means more power to the
experts.
The opposite means that the experts are losing ground.

I am no Ada expert, but as far as I know Ada (VERY little) it is a
modern, very
readable language, related to Pascal but more standardized. Readable
code means
that anyone can pick up your code and modify it. So, C programmers are
backtalking
both Ada and Pascal, since it threatens them, makes them easier to
replace.

I know C well, and think it is a horrible language. Someone called it a
"glorified
macro assembler", which is quite true. Just look at its "for" statements
and its
case switches. The for is just a kind of macro, and the case switch is a
jump
table.