case sensitivity

case sensitivity

[pse_papay]

In volume 89, issue 54 Bruce Anderson asked:
>
> ... does everyone think that the case-insensitivity of Ada is a positive
> feature and if so why?
>
The reason for Ada's case insensitivity is one of portability.  Ada was designed
to be the common higher order programming language for the DoD.  Since some of
the computers used by the DoD may not support upper and lower case characters, 
Ada cannot be a case sensitive language.  

Is this a positive feature of the language?  When one takes into account the
issue of portability, I think it is a very positive feature.  As for the
rest of the computer science community, I can only assume that a large number
of people feel the same way, as this feature was required by the "Steelman" 
document.

One last comment: Its too bad that many people feel "forced" to use Ada,
as Mr. Anderson's company is.  Why is it that when a group of C, or FORTRAN, 
or Pascal programmers get together (at a conference, workshop, et al), they're 
there because they _want_ to, while when a group of Ada programmers get 
together, many are there because they _have_ to?


David F. Papay                         papayd@gtewd.arpa
GTE Government Systems Corp.
100 Ferguson Dr.                       (415)-694-1522
PO Box 7188  M/S 5G09
Mountain View, CA  94039

Re: case sensitivity

[Bruce Anderson]

First off I appreciate the responses I have gotten on the case 
sensitivity issue. I still don't agree with them but I can see
how others might. 

On another subject, in one of the replies, David Papay comments:
>One last comment: Its too bad that many people feel "forced" to use Ada,
>as Mr. Anderson's company is.  Why is it that when a group of C, or FORTRAN, 
>or Pascal programmers get together (at a conference, workshop, et al), they're 
>there because they _want_ to, while when a group of Ada programmers get 
>together, many are there because they _have_ to?

I think that the primary reason people feel "forced" to use Ada is that 
they _ARE_ forced to use Ada. I may be wrong, but I don't think that most
companies who go out and design a microwave oven which happens to have a
processor in it are using C or Fortran or Pascal because the customer
won't buy it if they don't. They use a particular language because it
suits their environment best and _they_ get to decide what fits best.

Converting to a new language (any new language) is an expensive task and
Ada is more expensive than most. Not only do you have an extensive 
retraining process but a typical Ada cross compiler costs 10 to 15
times as much as a C cross compiler and the Ada compiler is very complex
and therefore requires more computer power for the same development
project. Because of this, many people do not see an economic reason
(and face it that's the real basis for decisions in a corporate
environment) to switch to Ada, if given a choice, particularly since 
the payback is very difficult to quantify. Also many people (and as a 
subclass programmers) get comfortable with what they know and _uncomfortable_ 
when they need to learn something new, especially when they need to learn 
it not because they are interested in it but because they _have_ to use it.

Personally, I feel that it is probably a good idea to switch to Ada 
or one of the other object oriented languages but I am enough of a 
rebel that when someone says "You've gotta do it", I tend to dig in
my heels a little. My impression of the people who usually read
(or at least post to) this group is that they are strong proponents
of Ada (as they should be). What I've tried to do here is describe
what many people on the outside are feeling.

Bruce Anderson - Scientific Atlanta, Government Products Div
...!sagpd1!banderso

Why don't more companies use Ada (was: Re: case sensitivity)

[Terry Westley]

In article <319@sagpd1.UUCP> banderso@sagpd1.UUCP (Bruce Anderson) writes:
>On another subject, in one of the replies, David Papay comments:
>>One last comment: Its too bad that many people feel "forced" to use Ada,
>
>I think that the primary reason people feel "forced" to use Ada is that 
>they _ARE_ forced to use Ada. I may be wrong, but I don't think that most
>companies who go out and design a microwave oven which happens to have a
>processor in it are using C or Fortran or Pascal because the customer
>won't buy it if they don't. They use a particular language because it
>suits their environment best and _they_ get to decide what fits best.

So, why don't more companies who have to build a microwave oven use Ada?

Here's my experience and what I hear from my peers in other companies
(mostly not DoD contractors):

1) Inertia.  Ada is perceived as a large, clumsy, expensive, military
   language.  Those who decide about languages often don't even
   consider it.  Mostly, people don't change because they have a
   billion lines of Fortran or C code and nobody ever told them they
   can still use it and also get many of the advantages Ada offers.

   Recently, I gave a talk at the local ACM chapter meeting about Ada
   features for software reuse.  I got a compliment from a programming
   manager on the talk.  He said that it was the first time he'd heard
   about some real advantages of using Ada!

   Have we really done such a poor job in getting the word out about
   how Ada addresses many of the difficulties of developing software?

2) Cost.  That's my problem here.  We do both military and commercial
   work.  In 1983, we chose Ada over C, Pascal, and Forth for doing
   real-time, embedded work.  We had been using assembler for
   closed-loop control of servovalves and other work.  In spite of the
   problems of Ada in 1983, we successfully completed two systems.
   Subsequently, we switched to C because of the cost of using Ada:
   high priced compilers, excessive memory usage, and slow execution
   time.

   Now that these problems seem to have abated somewhat, we are stuck
   with C because of the first reason: inertia.

   It's obvious to me that we would be more productive designing and
   coding in Ada (than in C) and could easily recover the cost of the
   compiler, but the inertia is enormous.

   Does anyone have any experience justifying a switch to Ada where you
   were not forced to?
-- 
  Terry Westley         
  Moog, Inc. (no, not the synthesizer company)
  East Aurora, NY  14052-0018
  {boulder,decvax,rocksanne,rutgers,ames}!sunybcs!moogvax!terry

Re: case sensitivity

[Steven D. Litvintchouk]

In article <8902201944.AA05264@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> pse_papay@GTEWD.ARPA writes:

> One last comment: Its too bad that many people feel "forced" to use
> Ada, as Mr. Anderson's company is.  Why is it that when a group of
> C, or FORTRAN, or Pascal programmers get together (at a conference,
> workshop, et al), they're there because they _want_ to, while when a
> group of Ada programmers get together, many are there because they
> _have_ to?

Do you believe that *your* company would routinely use Ada by choice, if
the DoD didn't require/force government contractors to use Ada?


Steven Litvintchouk
MITRE Corporation
Burlington Road
Bedford, MA  01730
Fone:  (617)271-7753
ARPA:  sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa
UUCP:  ...{att,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl
	"Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to
	 conquer the world."  -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.

Re: case sensitivity

[Dennis M. O'Connor]

An article by sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) says:
] Do you believe that *your* company would routinely use Ada by choice, if
] the DoD didn't require/force government contractors to use Ada?

  Yes. Several non-aerospace portions of GE already do.
--
 Dennis O'Connor   oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP  ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
  "...the bastard got away. God always fights on the side of the bad man"