Ada myths (was: An observation of Ada (may offend))

Ada myths (was: An observation of Ada (may offend))

[Theodore Dennison]

Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@speedy.intrepid.com> writes:
> 

> 
> > Enough of my griping. Back to the assignments...
> 
> Speaking of why people think Ada is not a good language... it'd be nice
> if someone collected the many myths about Ada, and collected them all
> together for distribution to the unbelievers. :-)  This would simplify
> telling people about Ada, especially if all they've heard was that it's
> a "big ugly ancient language used by the government", or that it's too
> 'huge' to be worth doing anything with.
> 

My personal favorite is: "Ada leaks memory".

Yup. I just sat the box right here on my desk, and look! Memory is 
dripping off my desk and collecting in a big pool on the floor here.
I'd better go get a mop before it soaks into the carpet...

T.E.D.
(sarcastic comment repeated witout permission)

Re: Ada myths (was: An observation of Ada (may offend))

[Bob Crispen]

Thanks to Paul Pukite.  For those of you keeping Ada pages on your
site (or maybe some Team Ada folks want to put it somewhere public),
here are Paul's words in HTML:

<h1>Top 10 myths and misconceptions about Ada</h1>

<strong><p>10. Myth: Ada is too complex and large a language.</strong>

<ul><p>False. Some people look at the detailed language reference manual and
equate a well-specified language (Ada) with that of a complex language.
In fact, recent surveys show Ada to be the second most popular
language, after Pascal, for first-year computer science courses.
And with the current situation of cheap computing power, Ada is
definitely NOT too large to implement.  For example, a typical
Ada Windows+DOS compiler requires just a few Megs of disk space.
</ul>

<strong><p>9. Myth: Ada costs too much.</strong>

<ul><p>False. If you include features automatically supported with Ada,
such as lint checking, range checking, etc. that normally require
add-on tool support for other languages, the costs become comparable.
Besides, GNAT Ada is free, comes on many different platforms,
and is starting to be used in embedded systems.
(...in any case, doesn't a programmer cost at least $50K a year?)
</ul>

<strong><p>8. Myth: Isn't Ada associated only with the military?</strong>

<ul><p>No.  It was originally sponsored by the DoD and in use by various
military organizations.  However, just like the Internet, VHDL,
Berkeley UNIX and several other DoD-seeded projects, it has outgrown
its roots; and Ada can now be considered an international
commercial language.
</ul>

<strong><p>7. Myth: Can't use it for small applications.</strong>

<ul><p>False.  In fact, Ada _scales_ in use from the smallest desktop
application to the onboard software of the largest aircraft (including
the Airbus 340 and the Boeing 777).

<pre>
      -- A complete Ada program to output "Hello World"
      with Text_IO;
      procedure Hello is
      begin
         Text_IO.Put_Line("Hello World");
      end Hello;
</pre>

<p>Now, is that small enough for you?

</ul>
<strong><p>6. Myth: It doesn't allow me any programming freedom.</strong>

<ul><p>False. You can actually have all the flexibility you want, but with
Ada you will likely have to call attention to the implementation-
specific sections of code.  Remember that maintenance, portability,
and team-programming are essentials elements of an Ada design.
And if you want, you can _always_ interface Ada in a standard way to
any other language (C, C++ classes, DLL (Ada DLL too!), Fortran).
</ul>

<strong><p>5. Myth: Ada is not a popular language.</strong>

<ul><p>Not true. You would be surprised at who uses Ada. Important
applications include air traffic control, communications satellites,
commercial airliners, TGV, many cities' subway systems,
and many other big projects that don't get a lot of publicity.
</ul>

<strong><p>4. Myth: Ada is for wimps (or words to that effect).</strong>

<ul><p>I don't have a good explanation for this one.  Is it the name Ada?
Or maybe that Ada programming is not associated with software hackers,
many of whom actually _enjoy_ spending time debugging obfuscated code?
Actually, Ada programmers don't care what they get called, as long
as they can continue to compile working programs the first time
through without needing to invoke a debugger.
</ul>

<strong><p>3. Myth: Too verbose.</strong>

<ul><p>As a means of documentation, Ada was designed to be easier to read
than to write.  In fact, entering code occupies only a fraction of a
programmer's time while the enhanced readability will pay for itself
when maintenance is needed.  If you don't believe this, I hope no
one has to read your code in a few years (including guess who?).
</ul>

<strong><p>2. Myth: Too slow, and executables too large.</strong>

<ul><p>False. GNAT Ada uses the same backend as other GNU-supported languages.
Compare for yourself, and you will discover Ada competes well
with the other high performance languages.  And if you really feel
the need for speed, Ada tasking maps transparently to the new multi-
processor-enabled computing platforms (such as SGI and NT).
</ul>

<p>And the #1 Ada myth:

<strong><p>1. Myth: Ada is not object-oriented.</strong>

<ul><p>False!  Actually, Ada 95 is the first internationally standardized OO
language (ISO, ANSI, FIPS) as it supports the essential features of
object orientation -- including full inheritance and run-time polymorphism
in addition to the abstraction and encapsulation always supported.
And...Ada has had exceptions and generic templates for 10 years.
</ul>


(p.s. thanks to Prof.Feldman for providing extra ammo)
Paul Pukite (pukite@DAINA.COM)

Rev. Bob "O'Bob" Crispen
revbob@hera.hv.boeing.com