Re: Ada 83 - Sometimes still chosen

[robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com]

In article <7dc9ld$2u6@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
  Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <7dbvl2$5bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> 	robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>  I am uneasy with the selection of the word "obsolete."
>  A technology is obsolete if it is not the best choice
>  for the solution to a particular problem.

I disagree, I would say that sometimes the use of obsolete
equipment is the right solution. I just bought a 1987 Ford
F250 truck, definitely an obsolete piece of equipment, but
just fine for my purposes.

>  I return to the example of the 1750A.  This processor,
>  by all standards for earth-bound computing is obsolete.
>  For a variety of technical reasons, it is still the
>  optimal choice for many space applications.

Actually we see very few projects selecting the 1750A for
new projects. There are other alternatives these days, such
as the ERC.

>  Sometimes the economics of an 8086 can make it the
> correct choice.

Very rarely these days. A 68K is almost always the better
choice, and is far more often used, which is why there are
Ada 95 compilers available for the 68K.

These days, it is quite inexpensive to generate a new
Ada 95 compiler, and if there are systems for which Ada 95
is not used, it is an indicator that very few new projects
are choosing the hardware in question (yes, I realize that
there is a chicken and egg problem, but it is minimal given
the low cost of porting an Ada 95 compiler). If no Ada 95
compiler is available for a given system, it almost
certainly means that the customer demand for such a
compiler is minimal or non-existant.

My fundamental point here is that the general impression
of the community is that Ada 83 was a failure. Yes, that
is hyperobole of course, but on the other hand, at this
stage, Ada 83 is pretty creaky.

Just yesterday, I talked to someone doing research into
object oriented component design. He was trying to fit
into C++, and having various troubles. He made a list of
deficiencies of C++, all fixed in Ada 95. He then was
playing with a modified Java to accomodate his ideas, all
of which could have been used directly in Ada 95.

When I asked him about Ada, he replied "Oh, does Ada have
object oriented features, I didn't know that".

Now suppose he were to ask on this list if Ada has object
oriented features. I would far rather he get an unambiguous
yes, rather than a:

  "well it depends which version of Ada you are using"

type response, which could easily be interpreted to mean
"not really".

The number of people asking about Ada 83 on this list is
small. The number of people asking about Ada 83 on this
list who do not know that they are asking about Ada 83 and
thus do not say is even smaller.

So of the people asking questions about Ada (without
specifying which version), the overwhelming majority are
talking about Ada 95, and it is a definite disservice to
tell people that Ada 83 is still in wide use and that they
must worry about the Ada 83 answer as well as the Ada 95
answer. This would be like asking a question on the C++
group, and having responders worry that you might really be
asking about C!

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own