From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Subject: Re: Ada 9X objectives
Date: 2 Oct 89 21:01:10 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6662@hubcap.clemson.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20600007@inmet
From ryer@inmet.inmet.com:
> If it costs $500k each to add a high quality multiple-inheritance type
> system to Ada compilers, and there are 15 separate baselines (FE's),
> then the cost of the feature (at high quality) is $7.5M. Will enough
> C++ and Eiffel users go out and buy one to cover the investment?
Look at it this way: if Ada 83 is not upgraded to reflect recent
advances in software engineering technology, then your investment
in Ada in general will go down the tubes along with the language.
We already know from a number of articles (e.g., "Comprehensive
Scheduling Controls for Ada Tasking", Tzilla Elrad, Ada Letters,
Fall 1988, and "Programming Atomic Actions in Ada", A. Burns and
A. J. Wellings, Ada Letters, September/October 1989) that the
entire Ada tasking system is going to have to be overhauled.
A good inheritance/class system in Ada 9X should be introduced now
along with this overhaul of the tasking system; I personally think
that if this is done, the resulting growth of Ada will provide rich
rewards to the compiler vendors who followed.
Comments were made at Tri-Ada '88 to the effect that while there are
real risks associated with changing (to Ada), there are even larger
risks (competitive risks) associated with NOT changing, and this is
what must be brought home to those organizations which are still using
the older languages. Perhaps we would do well to heed our own advice.
Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
prev parent reply other threads:[~1989-10-02 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1989-09-29 1:59 Ada 9X objectives Bill Wolfe
1989-09-30 16:59 ` ryer
1989-10-02 18:00 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-02 20:07 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-02 23:33 ` Translating 83 => 9X (Was: Re: Ada 9X objectives) Ronald Guilmette
1989-10-03 18:14 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-03 20:02 ` Ronald Guilmette
1989-10-05 1:56 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-05 20:35 ` John Goodenough
1989-10-06 16:11 ` Ada 9X objectives William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-07 1:27 ` Translating 83 => 9X (Was: Re: Ada 9X objectives) Ronald Guilmette
1989-10-08 16:39 ` Translating 83 => 9X William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-04 18:08 ` Translating 83 => 9X (Was: ryer
1989-10-05 15:29 ` stt
1989-10-08 17:56 ` Modernizing Ada William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-04 13:09 ` Re^2: Ada 9X objectives James E. Cardow
1989-10-04 20:24 ` Ted Dunning
1989-10-05 2:04 ` Ada vs. Scheme William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-06 12:06 ` Re^2: Ada 9X objectives Norman Diamond
1989-10-06 12:50 ` Robert Munck
1989-10-08 17:07 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-10 15:00 ` Robert Munck
1989-10-11 14:47 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-11 18:13 ` Dick Dunn
1989-10-11 22:14 ` Question about Ada expressions Perry Schmidt
1989-10-12 10:56 ` STEPHEN D. STRADER
1989-10-12 12:15 ` Robert Firth
1989-10-12 22:07 ` stt
1989-10-13 14:38 ` horst
1989-10-12 1:11 ` Ada 9X objectives William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-13 11:05 ` Markku Sakkinen
1989-10-06 19:00 ` Re^2: " Dick Dunn
1989-10-10 3:26 ` James E. Cardow
1989-10-12 5:09 ` Ada 9X objectives and long development cycles Dick Dunn
1989-10-12 18:16 ` Re^2: Ada 9X objectives Robert Eachus
1989-10-02 21:01 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox