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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,984f6fa143dc96f2,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mbates@ionet.net (Mike D Bates) Subject: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix? Date: 1997/05/29 Message-ID: <5mkgrl$akp@ion1.ionet.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 244770592 Organization: Internet Oklahoma Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Now that I have your attention.... No, MicroSoft isn't going to purchase Aonix, which is a shame, because the only way our company will ever use Ada is if Bill Gates is pushing it. My company builds aircraft simulators -- the kind used for pilot training, with real cockpit controls and instruments, full motion, and wraparound out-the-window visual scenes. We're looking at moving from Unix platforms to running simulation on a cluster of Intel-based syatems running NT. The reason? The hardware is more plentiful and cheaper than what we currently use, and there's a better chance that Intel and MicroSoft will still be around in 20 years (so the argument goes). Along with the new platform, we'll be using a new language. The options are C++ and Ada95. I've been arguing for Ada95, and the people involved in making the decision seem to be persuaded that with Ada we'd produce better, more efficient, more maintainable code. There's concern about what kind of mess our Fortran programmers would make if we handed them C++ to use. Nevertheless, C++ will be selected for use on all of our simulators for the next 10 years. The reasons boil down to: "MicroSoft is behind it" and "everybody is doing it" and "Ada's a dead language". More specifically: "Any improvements in new releases of NT will be immediately accessible in C++, but we might have to wait a year or so before Aonix has upgraded the Ada compiler to reflect the changes." "First it was Alsys, then Thomson, then Aonix. Seems pretty unstable. I know MicroSoft will be around in 10 years. How do I know this little Ada company will still be around?" "Countless millions of dollars are being spent to develop tools, class libraries, etc., for use in NT development. We won't be able to use them if we go with Ada. The Ada market is too small to bother with for software development tool makers." "Ada is like Betamax. It may be technically superior, but it's on its way out. Everyone is doing C++, and we'll be passed by if we go with Ada. Ada is a dead-end." "Some of our outside customers will be maintaining the simulator software themselves. They've heard how wonderful C++ is. They won't want to buy a simulator programmed in Ada." "We don't want to swim against the stream." "Everyone's learning C++; no one's learning Ada. We'll always have an easier time hiring C++ programmers than Ada programmers -- and they'll be cheaper too." "C++ is the native language of the NT platform. You have to write device drivers in C++." "MicroSoft uses C++ for their development. Don't you think they'd use Ada instead if it was really that much better?" Anyone have any good __evidence__ that counters these arguments? (And yes, I've been to www.adahome.com, but a lot of the info on commercial use of Ada appears to be pretty old.) Thanks, Mike Bates -- Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Section 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.