From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Ada 83 - Sometimes still chosen
Date: 1999/03/26
Date: 1999-03-26T13:11:34-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7dgm56$2c4@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7dfqr1$g5j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
In article <7dfqr1$g5j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>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 suddenly have this image of Robert in a tattered baseball
cap and faded bluejeans, a little spot of grease on the tip of his
nose from tinkering under the hood of his pickup truck. Those
who know Robert might also be amused by this image. Next, I
expect him to reveal that he has abandoned the pipe organ for
an avocation as a country and western singer with a steel string
guitar. :-)
Seriously, though, we simply have different ideas of the meaning
of obsolete. I am typing this on one of my office computers, a
Pentium 233. It is of course, obsolete by one meaning. It is not
obsolete for this purpose. The 1987 Ford is not obsolete if it
does the job intended.
>Actually we see very few projects selecting the 1750A for
>new projects. There are other alternatives these days, such
>as the ERC.
I just recently had yet another inquiry from a [prospective]
client who has selected the 1750A for a space application. It
turns out that the alternatives to 1750A are not universally
trusted by developers of communications satellites. BTW, is
there an Ada 95 for ERC?
>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,
Some developers of space applications are conservative.
If a technology is proven over time, has been successful
on other projects, and personnel are experienced with
it, the risk of staying with that technology might be deemed
less severe. This is the well-known "If it aint broke don't
fix it" viewpoint. A surprising number of program managers
adopt this peculiar stategy when designing for safety-critical
software.
>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.
I interpret this to mean that very few projects are inquiring
of ACT about the availability of a GNAT solution. I wonder if
a compiler publisher such as DDCI is having the same experience?
The last I heard, they were still selling a lot of Ada 83 compilers
to their international customer base.
>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.
Creaky? I hear the passenger's door of Robert's Ford truck opening
on a winter morning. I hear the engine cranking its first rotation
of the morning.
The success of Ada 83 on real projects would not lead me to use
the word "creaky" to describe it. I am, as are you, an advocate
of transitioning to Ada 95 whenever feasible. I am delighted
with the improvements in the standard and agree that Ada is the
current Ada 95. On the other hand, many of those improvements are
superfluous in the design of working software. For the space
applications mentioned earlier, one of the few really useful
improvements is unsigned numerics. Many communication satellite
designs avoid tasking, have no use for polymorphism, and are generally
conservative in the use of many other Ada features.
>
>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.
The list of deficiencies must have been long and mournful.
I have decided that, since there is not perfect programming
language, such comparisons are useful only for reinforcing
a previously held viewpoint.
>When I asked him about Ada, he replied "Oh, does Ada have
>object oriented features, I didn't know that".
We need to do more to get the word out on the new Ada standard.
Notice that few computer conferences have any participants from
the Ada community. An exception to this is the annual TOOLS USA
conference which has been accepting Ada tutorials and speakers for
several years now - along with other languages.
>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.
Ada 83 is still in wide use. It may be in wider use than Ada 95.
Those who are using it also have questions. Most of those who use
Ada 83 do not frequent this list. They are in the trenches grinding
out code. Many are new to Ada. When they do find this forum and
need to get the answer to a question, they could be unaware of the
existence of a new standard (as was you C++ colleague). All they
want is to get a question answered. If they fail to specify the
version of Ada, it is because they are still tilling the fields
originally sown with MIL-STD 1815, the only Ada they know.
Sometimes, because so many of us are active in the current version
of the language, it is hard to remember that so many are still
struggling with the issues of the previous standard.
It will not cause any permanent psychological damage for us to be
charitable toward those gentle jungle folk seeking help from
an unrehabilitated crocodile.
This would be like asking a question on the C++
>group, and having responders worry that you might really be
>asking about C!
HmmMMMMmmmmm. Does C++ have templates? Depends of what version
of C++ you are using. Does C++ have something like an Ada
package? It depends on which version of C++ you are using and
how you understand "namespace."
I agree with most of your observations, Robert. Ada 95 is Ada.
Not everyone programming in Ada 83 knows this.
Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com
http://www.adaworks.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-03-26 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-03-24 0:00 Calculating SQRT in ADA cmcrae
1999-03-23 0:00 ` Chris Morgan
[not found] ` <36F913E0.75F51763@lmco.com>
1999-03-24 0:00 ` John Herro
1999-03-24 0:00 ` Hans Marqvardsen
[not found] ` <36FAA3DF.42C31CF@lmco.com>
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-03-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-25 0:00 ` John Herro
1999-03-24 0:00 ` Hans Marqvardsen
1999-03-25 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-03-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Calculating SQRT in Ada John Herro
1999-03-26 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-03-26 0:00 ` John Herro
1999-03-25 0:00 ` Calculating SQRT in ADA robert_dewar
1999-03-25 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
1999-03-27 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-29 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-03-30 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-04-02 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-03-30 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-04-02 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-04-03 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-24 0:00 ` Ada 83 - Sometimes still chosen Richard D Riehle
1999-03-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-25 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1999-03-25 0:00 ` Marin David Condic
1999-03-26 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-25 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1999-03-25 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-03-26 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen
1999-03-27 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-27 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle [this message]
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-03-29 0:00 ` Marin David Condic
1999-03-29 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen
1999-03-27 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-03-25 0:00 ` Calculating SQRT in ADA robert_dewar
1999-03-24 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG
1999-03-25 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-03-24 0:00 ` Marin David Condic
1999-03-24 0:00 ` bob
1999-03-24 0:00 ` Niklas Holsti
1999-03-26 0:00 ` als0045
1999-03-26 0:00 ` als0045
1999-03-26 0:00 ` bob
1999-03-26 0:00 ` Marin David Condic
1999-03-26 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox