Re: "C" and Ada

Re: "C" and Ada

[VAXID1::VAXID1::MRGATE::"A1::TUFFS1"@atc.alcoa.COM]

From:	NAME: P. S. TUFFS                   
	FUNC: PCCT (16)               
	TEL: (412) 337 2946       <TUFFS1 AT A1 AT VAXID1>

An article from "ihnp4!wlbr!etn-rad!jru" (I don't know who this is since 
no name or paper address was given) comments:

> ... Don't expect to see ADA used very widely outside of the DOD 
>environment... 

and goes on to argue that the reasons for this are that IBM dominates 
the commercial sectors and that COBOL will therefor remain the dominant 
language.  Probably true, I don't have too much feel for the business 
end of the commercial sector.  However, I feel compelled to add that I 
noted with joy the apparent endorsement of Ada by IBM, when they adopted 
a third party Ada compiler.  This seems to me, a dedicated *non* IBM 
user, an indication that even IBM will adapt under pressure from the 
largest procurer of computer systems in the world, the Department of 
Defense.

One more point, before you all die of boredom.  There is a large 
installed base of computer systems in the commercial sector, programmed 
and used by Engineers who think that COBOL is some kind of radioactive 
isotope.  Most of the computers they use have been programmed in 
FORTRAN, and I sincerely hope that Ada will replace FORTRAN in the 
engineering sector.

Finally, how many organizations still believe in "roll-your-own" 
software from the ground up?  My perception is that the commercial 
sector is adopting packages such as Lotus for some of their business 
work, and as these packages become better, surely they or something like 
them will replace COBOL.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HANDLE: Simon Tuffs
CSNET:  TUFFS@ATC.ALCOA.COM
PAPER:  P.S.Tuffs, Alcoa Technical Center, Alcoa Center, Pa 15069
AT&T:   (412) 337 2946

Disclaimer:  These ideas are mere ramblings, and if they bear any 
relationship with reality I will be extremely surprised.  They do not 
necessarily represent the views of my organization (but maybe one day 
they will).

Re: "C" AND Ada

[blackje%sungod.tcpip]

Received: by sungod.steinmetz (3.2/1.1x Steinmetz)
	id AA02000; Tue, 25 Aug 87 10:18:39 EDT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 10:18:39 EDT
From: emmett black <blackje@sungod>
Posted-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 10:18:39 EDT
Message-Id: <8708251418.AA02000@sungod.steinmetz>
To: info-ada@ada20.isi.edu
Subject: Re: "C" AND Ada

concerning translating other languages to Ada --

I do sort of agree with Kent (the man from xanth) that 
converted programs should be "rethought" rather than just
automagically and blindly translated..

And I also agree that those Cobol conversions he mentions 
create code that is less maintainable than the original...

However, I do not quite agree that we should extend that observation
into Ada...  If you JUST blindly translate from some language
into Ada and stop there -- then I still agree -- it's a mistake.
But we did a FORTRAN to Ada translator -- which I thought was a 
mistake at first -- and did use it to translate a buncha stuff...
and you DO get "BAD Ada" -- (GIGO, remember?) -- but DONT 
STOP THERE -- that bad Ada turned out to be significantly 
more useful in spotting all the nasties the FORTRAN programmers
had slipped into the code and in providing a means for "reverse
engineering" the FORTRAN -- making it EASIER to RETHINK and 
rewrite the old program -- because it was easier to get a grasp
on what the original program was supposed to do in the first place.

If somebody tried to turn in that first pass automagically translated
into Ada program -- they should get a really unfriendly reception...
but if they use that as a means to accelerate the re-engineering,
then they did OK.

--Emmett
	BlackJE@GE-CRD.ARPA

"C" vrs ADA

[Glen Harman]

Hello, sorry to interrupt your regularly scheduled news articles, but I
didn't know where else to turn...

I am a senior EE student whose current career goal is to work in an aerospace
and/or military research field.  To better my chances, I would like to 
supplement my Fortran skills with another language.  "C" has been recommended
to me many times, and I was just about to buy a manual when I started hearing 
about ADA.

I have heard that is is the DoD language, but what does that mean?  Are all 
aerospace and military contractors required to use it?  Is it suggested learningfor the major corporate engineers?  Is it filtering down into the public 
engineering sectors?  Is it too specialized to be applied elsewhere if I didn't
get the desired job?

Being that I am relatively unfamiliar with what is being used in these fields,
I am turning to those of you in the know.  If you have any thoughts on the pros
and cons of either language, and/or would care to make a suggestion, I would
greatly appreciate it. If you could, please recommend a book on the subject. 

Please send replies to:  \!{cbmvax, pyrnj, bpa }\!vu-vlsi\!harman

Thank you for you help!

Glenvar Harman

Re: "C" vrs ADA

[spf]

In article <1065@vu-vlsi.UUCP> harman@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Glen Harman) writes:
>supplement my Fortran skills with another language.  "C" has been recommended
>to me many times, and I was just about to buy a manual when I started hearing 
>about ADA.

Learn them both.  C is the assembly language, and Ada the High Order
Language (HOL), of the next ten years in the DoD community.  The DoD
doesn't much like C from a lifecycle point of view, but has trouble
denying its availability and current performance advantage over Ada
(just like assembly with respect to FORTRAN 20+ years ago).

Steve Frysinger

---
Why would I waste my time expressing someone else's opinion?

Re: "C" AND Ada

[Eugene Miya N.]

>In article <1065@vu-vlsi.UUCP> harman@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Glen Harman) writes:
>>	... discussion about Ada and C for aeroSPACE ...
>
In article <12513@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) says:
>Learn them both.

I hate these cross-referenced posting, but I recognize this as a
vocational question not just a technical question.  I also recognize
that few people who are really using Ada have responded.  I sent Glen
mail, but I realize others will ignore it.

First, vocation, I agree with Steve: learn both, or the ideas of both.
What the Glens of the world have to realize is that companies don't hire
you just because you know C or Ada, they hire you because you are
supposed to be bright and flexible (gleem!).  The world is trending
toward multi-lingual programming environments: using many languages to
solve problems [I'm even learning Icon now].  That is the point.  No
single language will solve all your problems, they are not designed that
way.

Second, policy. This is the real reason why I wanted to post this.
In the case of the Space Station (note caps), the word very high is any
software developer writing for the Station MUST use Ada.  Recently, the
AI groups in NASA had this dropped on them: no LISP (for Station).  None
what so ever.  [I won't debate the intelligence of this decision.]
Control is tight.  This does not mean C won't fly on some self-contained
packages, but it does set the tone (from pre-flight reviews) of the
main Station software.  This in turn affects other projects (excepting
certain HAL/S based projects like Shuttle).

If you want to work in aerospace (military or not), you can't ignore Ada.
But learn other languages and be flexible.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

Re: "C" AND Ada

[Richard Harter]

In article <2537@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>Second, policy. This is the real reason why I wanted to post this.
>In the case of the Space Station (note caps), the word very high is any
>software developer writing for the Station MUST use Ada.

This raises a question -- are there any C to Ada translation programs.
We (SDMS Inc.  CCA is just the machine that we use for Vax BSD work) have
a product that sells into people who sell into DoD.  My opinion of Ada
is not germane; at some point we are going to have to come to terms with
Ada and we may have to deal with the prospect of converting to Ada for
some markets.  I expect that other software vendors are in the same boat.

Does such a package exist?  Are there rumors that somebody is doing it?
Any information on the possibility would be of interest.  
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.

Re: "C" AND Ada

[Kent Paul Dolan]

In article <19093@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <2537@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>>In the case of the Space Station (note caps), the word very high is any
>>software developer writing for the Station MUST use Ada.
>
>This raises a question -- are there any C to Ada translation programs.
>We (SDMS Inc.  CCA is just the machine that we use for Vax BSD work) have
>a product that sells into people who sell into DoD.  My opinion of Ada
>is not germane; at some point we are going to have to come to terms with
>Ada and we may have to deal with the prospect of converting to Ada for
>some markets.  I expect that other software vendors are in the same boat.

I'm sure such a translator could be written and may well already have been
written.  Using it would be the highest kind of foolishness, however.

Ada(tm) is not just another way to write C, or FORTRAN, or COBOL.
Ada, by design, embodies the "best informed understanding" of what a
programming language needs to support the wisdom developed by software
engineering theoreticians and practicioners.  Used correctly, it can
provide spectacular benefits.  I sat in on a presentation in about
1984 by a vendor of business software of the typical "20% development
costs, 80% maintenance costs" breed who detailed converting a suite of
programs from Pascal (a rather nice to maintain language itself) to
Ada, and saving 7/8ths of his maintenance costs!  That is a better
than two thirds cost savings over the lifetime of the code.

This is what DOD paid for when they bought Ada, not just a mechanical
translation with the same old maintenance headaches in the new program
as in the old.  I don't think "translated" programs would get a very
friendly reception (I sure hope not); software needs to be rethought,
and rewritten from scratch, fully using the software engineering tools
that Ada provides, to bring Ada's benefits to the user/customer.

Sorry to be so dogmatic about this (can you say "True Believer"?), but
I've been through two mainframe conversions (one federal, one private)
that used mechanical code translation, and it was a mistake, even when
the translation was COBOL 68 to COBOL 74.  The code ends up _less_
maintainable, not more, as the idiot machine butchers the carefully
hand formatted comments, ignores improvements provided in ways to do
things by the new language, and generally just blunders along.

Kent, the man from xanth.