Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do?

["Kevin Rigotti" <rigotti@atc.dera.gov.uk>]

Much as it pains me to say so, Ada is not always the most appropriate
language.

For example, however good the bindings, toolsets, etc that are available it
is simply easier and more convenient to write X Windows user interfaces in
C/C++ because that's what the  designers expected you to do.

Bindings and support for Gtk are a good thing, but at the end of the day
what I and others in a similar situation really want to do is to build the
clever stuff in Ada then hand it over for integration with someone elses
GUI, produced using whatever is cheapest and easiest.

I don't care if the trivial stuff is written in C, C++, Java or anything
else but I do care about integration costs, particularly if they are so
painful that I have to implement experiment critical code in a language I
consider inappropriate in order to reduce them.

So, the thing that would make the biggest impact on the uptake of Ada in my
environment at the moment is being able to mix and match Ada with C++
seamlessly, using whichever fitted the problem most cost effectively.

Doing this for compilers from the same family such as  GNAT and G++ is a
good start but only a serious standardisation effort is really going to have
the required impact and allow  Import(cpp, ...) to be taken for granted in
the way that Import(C, ...) now is.

We could then use the youngest, cheapest staff for the C++ hacking and when
they'd had time to learn what real software engineering was all about they
could move on to doing the important stuff in Ada.

People need upgrade paths too :-)

Kevin