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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8b6b07447ac07fd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "news.oxy.com" Subject: Re: ACT ANNOUNCES: GNAT 3.11p now available! Date: 1999/01/27 Message-ID: <78n0bh$kir$1@remarQ.com> X-Deja-AN: 437500401 References: <78ifi5$28v$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78kk1d$a6u$1@remarQ.com> <78m3sj$3a8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com X-Trace: 917439665 HXI3FRZSOA57FC7F8C usenet54.supernews.com Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here! Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@gnat.com wrote in message <78m3sj$3a8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <78kk1d$a6u$1@remarQ.com>, > "news.oxy.com" wrote: >> I hoped that GLADE would come with GNAT 3.11p as ready >> and easy to use option of the GNAT 3.11p installation >> package (at list for Windows NT users) that can be >> installed as one of the available options during >> installation. Instead it goes separately and you need to >> mess up with additional Unix utilities to install it. I >> think it is not very convenient for Windows NT >> users and so it does not help to promote Ada. > >Well this is not a feature that our customers have required >so far, and so it is unlikely we will do it in the near >future. However, Vladimir, how about putting your energy >into useful work instead of writing complaints. Nothing >like fixing things yourself. If you can create a nicely >packaged working binary release of GLADE for NT or other >targets, we will be glad to put it in the contributors >section at cs.nyu.edu! > First of all I should mention that I am not complaining at all. There is nothing to complain about. I am glad to have new release of GNAT that is better then previous. I am just tying to point out things that to my opinion are not very convenient to the "end-users", especially in Windows NT world. Such "end-users" may consider Ada and existing Ada tools as building blocks that can be used to build systems of different complexity where software components are just few building blocks among many others. May be in Unix world it is usual practice to force "end-user" to overcome some difficulties and barriers to keep them fit but in Windows NT world it is different. Just think over why Microsoft won the battle in the corporate PC desktop market (Windows NT and Microsoft Office). They are just oriented to the "end- user" and he/she feels that this is true. There may be discussions that MS Windows is not the best operating system at all and that there are better systems. But Windows NT itself and set of tools for business applications are oriented to the "end-user". The fact is that the game on PC desktop market is over. Remember destiny of the OS/2, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, Quttro-Pro and many others. Ada will have success in non-military areas in Windows NT world if and only if it will be "end-user" oriented so that any individual (professional programmer or occasional programmer) that wants to create something under Windows NT will have ready to use building blocks. Here I would like to quote myself from one of my posts: "Imagine that you need to build a house (application) and not just a shelter but a very good house. You have set of tools (compiler system) - hammer, knives, shovel, axe, nails, glue e.t.c. whatever is needed for building house. But if there is no industry that produces building blocks and materials then each person who wants to build house have first to manufacture them by himself/herself. I hope that this is clear to everyone how long will it take to build a house and what it will look like" >From that point of view (a lot of people have the same opinion) nothing in Ada world (in Windows NT area) comes even close to Borland Delphi. I will just mention that recently I explained to my 15 years son how to build simple database application using Delphi and he did this in 30 minutes. Is that possible now using Ada? I think the answer is obvious. This is also an answer why it is difficult to make Ada more popular in non-military area. If there will be ready and easy to use products then there will be more success. As a matter of fact your choice is your choice but do not forget that users are making their choices also. If they have something that more easy to use and that have a large number of different building blocks for their needs they choose that product even if it will be based on more less perfect programming language (see note about ACE below). I know at least one Ada company that did the right step in right direction, namely RR Software with their CLAW product. Of course this is not Delphi but at least something. And I have already ordered it. Here you suggest me to put my energy for creating public binary GLADE packaging for Windows NT. If I would be full time professional programmer and had enough time I would probably do so but I am belong to the class of occasional programmers. This should be done by software company professional programmers and not by enthusiasts. Of course I will deploy GLADE on my machine but only because I have been waiting for it quite a while. But many others just won't do that. They may think ;" Why should I overcome any difficulties. They do not want to make it easy for me so I will use something ready to use." As a matter of fact Delphi itself has communication components and many others are available from 3d party companies. I am telecommunications engineer and have a lot of other complicated things to do in the my telecommunications area. So I want ready to use tools and building blocks when I need to do something "soft" for my needs. For many years before I joined to OXY in 1993 I was involved in the Russian manned space program dealing with top level complex onboard and ground system development (telecommunications and control systems design, testing, launch preparations, flight operations e.t.c.) - analyzing system approaches, solutions, defining system requirements (to hardware and software components) , intersystem interfaces, systems integration, supervising development as a whole and developing some components by myself, working closely with programmers groups, doing some programming by myself and many other things. One of the important part of such work was finding and outlining weak sides of the design and pointing out how to make them strong. I see how well Ada is suited for complex system development but if there are no ready and easy to use building blocks. Any system designer may choose something (based on less perfect language) which has already whatever needed (when they are not obliged to use particular programming language). Why should we have to reinvent the wheel if something is already exists (may be less perfect but it is already at hand). When I am talking about something I talking from system designer point of view. Many people here are pure programmers and as such they have somewhat more narrow point of view on many things and there is nothing wrong in that. You mentioned that some of these issues were discussed to death in some other forums and that there are nothing new in what I am talking about. I suppose that most of these discussions were between pure programmers and Ada enthusiasts and not many of the "end-users" and system designers in general were involved in these discussions. Anyway I will check this. As for me I would like to have perfect RAD system based on perfect programming language. Quite natural desire, is not it? As for system packaging one of the ways widely used in NT world is incremental value-added packages to add specific group of features to the already installed products. Such packages may be aimed to different groups of users. This decrease size if the initial distribution and gives a lot of flexibility. You can have several such value-added packages for GNAT. I have a feeling that at least two years have been lost. When Ada was sponsored by US DoD many people thought that will continue forever and such mentality played it's negative role. Now Ada software companies have to seek for new sponsors outside military. And they may appear if needed "soft" blocks will be developed. As example of that is Adaptive Communication Environment (ACE) created by Douglas C. Schmidt which is Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Distributed Object Computing in the Department of Computer Science in Washington University in Saint Louis http://siesta.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html ). Extremely good toolkit that was built using not perfect Ada but C++. This is what was really needed for industry. Just look at sponsors list and the list of companies that are using it as well as what have been built upon it (e.g. TAO - Real Time CORBA ). In addition this is free software. I wish to have it written in Ada 95 and be available as one of application building blocks within Ada RAD environment. There is a great need for some kind of universal communication software components. I have a dream that Ada software companies will be oriented not only to the already formed Ada user groups but to the potential users in many different areas outside it's initial domain. Windows NT world is one of such groups. Some others are: IBM AS/400 (to give an alternative not to COBOL but rather to the RPG an CL) - of course if IBM get interested. Palm Pilot (Ada has there some potential as GNU is already there and no Microsoft). Finally I would like to mention once more that Ada software Companies are making their choices and potential users/customers are also making theirs. Very often their choices are not the same. Regards, Vladimir Olensky (vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com) (Vladimir_Olensky@oxy.com) Telecommunication specialist, Occidental C.I.S. Service, Inc. ( www.oxy.com ) Moscow, Russia.