Re: How many different processors do you use?

[muddy_buddy@my-deja.com]

In article <7jmmqi$vm2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7jm5pa$ome$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   muddy_buddy@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <7jk7hk$36s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >   Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <7jjij7$qci$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > >   muddy_buddy@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > 1. The Ada comittee went and created their own syntak, and
> > > > increased the learning curve.
> > >
> > > Committee? what committee?
> > I read someones' website and your right, but that was the
> > belief.  There certainly was an approval commitee that took
> > too long.
>
> If you think an international standard can be achieved any
> quicker than it was, you just don't know how standards proceed.
> FYI, the Ada standard process was FAR FAR faster than the C
> or C++ processes.

Perhaps the offical process was, but there were C compliers out before
the sign off.  Its that true of Ada 95?
>
> > > > 2. The Reagen adminstration was so anti-gov that they
> didn't
> > > > fund a quality free or at least cheap Ada development
> system
> > > > for education, and small companies.
> > >
> > > This claim is not even vagely related to reality.
> >
> > It was a major factor.
>
> (lots of irrelevant stuff snipped)
>
> Nope! You completely missed what I said was not related
> to reality, and that is the claim that the failure to support
> a quality free Ada development system was due to some kind of
> Reagan anti-gov attitude,
I guess my dislike of Reagen may have made me assume it was his fault
that the government didn't support the obvious method of getting Ada
accepted.  However, there were government people pointing that out
as a reason in the 80's.


>
> > That would be chicken feed compare to what the Ada effort
> > failure has costed.
>
> First, I don't see an "Ada effort failure" here. I see many
> successful projects that continue to use Ada in an effective
> way. Individual companies may have screwed things up for
> themselves but don't assume that generalizes to everyone!

The goal of the Ada project was to standardize defense deptmart
software on Ada.  Since there are many defense contractors rapidily
retreating from Ada support over ten years past the deadlines I don't
see how the orginal effort can be considered anything but a failure.
Perhaps Ada 95 and all the wonderful commerical support can restart the
effort, but for now I think it has failed at its goal.


>
> > It certainly wasn't a small factor for us, and it prevented
> > Ada from gaining any widespread use as a lab tool development
> > language, and
> > prevented electrical engineers from having access.  10k is a
> > whole lot of money for a University,
>
> Your 10K figure is a bogus one picked out of the air. Many
> universities had Ada, none I know paid anywhere near 10K.

The 10k number as the price I remember for the development system
we got.  It could be wrong, but it certainly wasn't picked out of the
air.  It was a system for a 320c30 if I remember correctly.
>

> Sounds like quite a bit of mismanagement there to me!

Agreed, but the government's mismanagement of the Ada effort was
the whole point of my orginal post, not any attack on the Ada
language.  I wish they had done a better job.


> You had other alternatives, again sounds like bad management.
> For one thing, the Ada mandate absolutely did not apply in
> cases where no Ada compiler was available, so either your
> facts are distorted, or you REALLY had a case of completely
> messed up management.
>
See above, the Ada language itself was a minor problem.  The
way the government supported it was cause of the lack of
acceptance.  The same government agency also tried to get us
to do Ada Peudo code for PLD's.  I not positive our own managament
wasn't at fault for some of this, but the Government's Ada effort
must of made them think thats what the customer wanted.

> It sounds in general like things were mismanaged. Ada is not
> some magic cure-all for bad management!
>
> If you can't get Ada programmers to work in your environment,
> perhaps it is because there is something wrong with your
> environment. Lots of other Ada shops I know manage to attract
> and retain good people.

Admittely we have a lot of problem finding any programmers to work
here, but adding Ada to the requirements just makes it worst.  When
you have a defense contractor in a hot engineering market, retension
becomes a real problem.


>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.