* case sensitivity
@ 1989-02-20 19:45 pse_papay
1989-02-21 8:18 ` Bruce Anderson
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: pse_papay @ 1989-02-20 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: case sensitivity 1989-02-20 19:45 case sensitivity pse_papay @ 1989-02-21 8:18 ` Bruce Anderson 1989-02-22 14:45 ` Why don't more companies use Ada (was: Re: case sensitivity) Terry Westley 1989-02-22 22:28 ` case sensitivity Steven D. Litvintchouk 1989-02-27 14:45 ` Dennis M. O'Connor 2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Bruce Anderson @ 1989-02-21 8:18 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Why don't more companies use Ada (was: Re: case sensitivity) 1989-02-21 8:18 ` Bruce Anderson @ 1989-02-22 14:45 ` Terry Westley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Terry Westley @ 1989-02-22 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: case sensitivity 1989-02-20 19:45 case sensitivity pse_papay 1989-02-21 8:18 ` Bruce Anderson @ 1989-02-22 22:28 ` Steven D. Litvintchouk 1989-02-27 14:45 ` Dennis M. O'Connor 2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Steven D. Litvintchouk @ 1989-02-22 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: case sensitivity 1989-02-20 19:45 case sensitivity pse_papay 1989-02-21 8:18 ` Bruce Anderson 1989-02-22 22:28 ` case sensitivity Steven D. Litvintchouk @ 1989-02-27 14:45 ` Dennis M. O'Connor 2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Dennis M. O'Connor @ 1989-02-27 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) 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" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1989-02-27 14:45 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1989-02-20 19:45 case sensitivity pse_papay 1989-02-21 8:18 ` Bruce Anderson 1989-02-22 14:45 ` Why don't more companies use Ada (was: Re: case sensitivity) Terry Westley 1989-02-22 22:28 ` case sensitivity Steven D. Litvintchouk 1989-02-27 14:45 ` Dennis M. O'Connor
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox