Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Jerry Petrey]

arek wrote:
> 
> Hello there
> 
> Would you recommend a good book for learning ADA.
> Is a book "ADA - An Advanced Introduction Including Reference Manual for
> the Ada Programming Language" (by Narain Gehani) good for this purpose ?
> 
> Regards
> Arek


If you look at the SigAda site -
http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigada/education/
in the 'Books on Ada' link you will find reviews of most of the
available
Ada books.  I just recently posted a review there on an outstanding
book on Ada for people with some programming background called
"Ada Essentials: Overview, Examples and Glossary".  It is small and
concise and also quite inexpensive and available in either printed or
electronic format.

The book you referenced is a very good book but it was written back
around
1989 and covers Ada 83 only.

Also check out Barnes' "Programming in Ada 95", 2nd edition.  I have
also 
reviewed it on Amazon.com.  Highly recommended!

Good Luck,
Jerry

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Jerry Petrey                                                
-- Senior Principal Systems Engineer - Navigation, Guidance, & Control
-- Raytheon Missile Systems          - Member Team Ada & Team Forth
-- NOTE: please remove <NOSPAM> in email address to
reply                  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[BSCrawford]

Arek, 

It depends on what sort of beginner you are. 

I have recently published a small (227 pages) book called 
"Ada Essentials: Overview, Examples and Glossary." 

This book would not be for you if you are a beginning programmer  
but if you have experience with one or more other languages, 
it may be just what you are looking for.  See
   http://www.learnada.com 

A review of the book may be found at the Ada Education site at 
  http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigada/education/  
where you will find reviews of other books as well. 

Good luck with Ada, 

Bard S. Crawford, 
  Author of "Ada Essentials: Overview, Examples and Glossary," 
  a compact volume available in three forms: printed book, pdf 
  file, and a collection of browser-based web pages.  See
http://www.learnada.com  
-----------------------
Stage Harbor Software
9 Patriots Drive - Lexington, MA - 02420 USA
bard@learnada.com - 781-862-3613

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Brian Rogoff]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:14:54 +0100, arek wrote:
> >Hello there
> >
> >Would you recommend a good book for learning ADA.
> >Is a book "ADA - An Advanced Introduction Including Reference Manual for
> >the Ada Programming Language" (by Narain Gehani) good for this purpose ?
> 
> I don't know this book, but it depends on how much you know programming
> in general.

Someone else pointed out that this uses the obsolete Ada-83.

You also neglect to mention John English's book for beginners, titled 
"Ada 95: The Craft of Object Oriented Programming", which is where I'd
point beginners. He stresses OOP, which is no doubt contentious, but he
uses the same excellent naming conventions as Norman Cohen's book and 
for that he must be commended (yeah, that's flamebait :). 

If you have a bit more programming experience, Ben-Ari's book is really
worth looking at, and since it uses the RM with fleshed out examples 
it might be quite helpful for getting into the Ada mindset.

I've noticed that the quality of Ada 95 books is amazingly high. 

-- Brian

 > 
> (see http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada95books.html for more info on
> the books below)
> 
> No programming experience:
> 
>    Ada from the Beginning, 3rd ed.
>    Jan Skansholm 
> 
>    or
> 
>    Ada 95: Problem Solving and Program Design, 3rd ed.
>    Michael Feldman and Elliot Koffman.
> 
> Some experience:
> 
>    Booch, Grady, and D. Bryan. Software Engineering with Ada. 3rd ed.
>    Benjamin-Cummings, 1993. (ISBN: 0-8053-0608-0; Paperback, $45.25) 
>          Introduces Ada from a software engineering vantage. Addresses the
>          issues of building complex systems. Includes new features in this
>          second version: a more thorough introduction to Ada syntax and
>          semantics, an updated section on object-oriented techniques to
>          reflect the current state of knowledge, and improved examples that
>          illustrate good Ada style for production systems development..
> 
>    or 
> 
>    Object-Oriented Software in Ada 95
>    Michael A. Smith.
> 
> Books that cover all of Ada 95 (not so easy to use as introductory
> books)
> 
>    Programming In Ada 95 (2nd edition!!)
>    John Barnes.
> 
>    or
> 
>    Ada as a Second Language (2nd Edition)
>    Norman Cohen.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >Regards
> >Arek
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
> iMy favorite editor is Emacs!<ESC>bcwVim<ESC>
>                                          -- vim best-editor.txt
> 

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:52:35 GMT, Brian Rogoff wrote:
>You also neglect to mention John English's book for beginners, titled 
>"Ada 95: The Craft of Object Oriented Programming", which is where I'd
>point beginners. He stresses OOP, which is no doubt contentious, but he
>uses the same excellent naming conventions as Norman Cohen's book and 
>for that he must be commended (yeah, that's flamebait :). 

I don't know John English's book either that is why I didn't mention it
:-) But I have also heard other recommend it. Unfortunately the library
does not have it and I have all the Ada books (4) I need for the moment
:-)

>I've noticed that the quality of Ada 95 books is amazingly high. 

Yes I agree there. There are to my knowledge no Learn/Teach yourself Ada
in X min/day/weeks nor Ada for Dummies. O'Reilly does not have any Ada
books which a bit of a pity though. Not that all O'Reilly books are of
high quality...

-- 
Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
iMy favorite editor is Emacs!<ESC>bcwVim<ESC>
                                         -- vim best-editor.txt

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Andrzej Lewandowski]

"Brian Rogoff" <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0101260844150.2744-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Preben Randhol wrote:
 >
> I've noticed that the quality of Ada 95 books is amazingly high.
>
> -- Brian


With some exceptions:   Object-Oriented Software in Ada 95   Michael A. Smith.
Unless you want to learn how to write C++ program in Ada 95.

A.L.

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:15:59 -0600, Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
>With some exceptions:   Object-Oriented Software in Ada 95   Michael A. Smith.
>Unless you want to learn how to write C++ program in Ada 95.

Please explain.

-- 
Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
iMy favorite editor is Emacs!<ESC>bcwVim<ESC>
                                         -- vim best-editor.txt

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[squeaker]

I have Ada 95  From the beginning 3rd ed by Jan Skansholm, pub addison
wesley isbn:0-201-40376-5... it was the book required for the course at uni,
its definatly an okay book for learning from, but it doesnt it doesnt seem
to cover tasks at all and were then recommened to get Programming in Ada95
2nd edition by john barnes, same publisher isbn:0-201-34293-6 and is a very
good book for reference and explaining some aspects once more familiar with
the language

rich


"arek" <tomczak@becker.k.pl> wrote in message
news:3A71400E.32057C6B@becker.k.pl...
> Hello there
>
> Would you recommend a good book for learning ADA.
> Is a book "ADA - An Advanced Introduction Including Reference Manual for
> the Ada Programming Language" (by Narain Gehani) good for this purpose ?
>
> Regards
> Arek
>
>

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Brian Rogoff]

I can't speak for Andrzej, but I did notice on perusing the programs at
the web site 

http://www.brighton.ac.uk/ada95/programs/home.htm

that Smith tends to use packages as classes. I'm not disposed towards that 
approach, but I'm also not disposed towards "OO uber-alles" in general so 
take that however you want to. I don't think that tagged records make 
variant records obsolete (yes JE, I wish you'd change your book :), so 
I'd like Ada books to cover a few approaches. 

-- Brian

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Preben Randhol wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:15:59 -0600, Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
> >With some exceptions:   Object-Oriented Software in Ada 95   Michael A. Smith.
> >Unless you want to learn how to write C++ program in Ada 95.
> 
> Please explain.
> 
> -- 
> Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
> iMy favorite editor is Emacs!<ESC>bcwVim<ESC>
>                                          -- vim best-editor.txt
> 

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Andrzej Lewandowski]

"Brian Rogoff" <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0101281019400.7734-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> I can't speak for Andrzej, but I did notice on perusing the programs at
> the web site
>
> http://www.brighton.ac.uk/ada95/programs/home.htm
>
> that Smith tends to use packages as classes. I'm not disposed towards that
> approach, but I'm also not disposed towards "OO uber-alles" in general so
> take that however you want to. I don't think that tagged records make
> variant records obsolete (yes JE, I wish you'd change your book :), so
> I'd like Ada books to cover a few approaches.
>

Some people express the opinion that the necessary condition for a language
to be OO is that this language has classes. These classes MUST be C++
style.

Ada95 (and Oberon; it is interesting what was the impact of Oberon
and Wirth's work on extensible types on Ada 95 design of tagged types, if any)
has different mechanism. Moreover, it has been pointed out (see the book on component
programming by Szyperski and his presentation on one of ECOOPs) that
object orientation and modules are in principle orthoogonal concepts, and
that BOTH and SEPARATE are required to build well structured OO programs.
C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk ond others are using classes for both purposes: OO and
encapsulation (say, modularization). Ada95 and Oberon are two (well, maybe not
the ONLY two...) languages that separate these two notions. In other words, these
languages are the only languages that make this RIGHT. Therefore, an attempt to
emulate C++ classes in Ada95 just to have the same mechanisms as in
C++ is not a prograss, it is a step backward.


A.L.

OO and modules ( was Which book for ADA beginner ?)

[Hans-Olof Danielsson]

Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:

>......
> object orientation and modules are in principle orthoogonal concepts, and
> that BOTH and SEPARATE are required to build well structured OO programs.

That�s interesting. Does that mean that adding, modifying or deleting an
OO-object from a software system doesn�t effect the architecture of it as
the architecture deals with components ( modules ) and their relationship?

> C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk ond others are using classes for both purposes: OO
and
> encapsulation (say, modularization).

> Ada95 and Oberon are two (well, maybe not
> the ONLY two...) languages that separate these two notions.
>......

and are therefore more expressive at the architectual level compared to the
first group languages?

And to which group does Java with its interface and package constructs
belong, the first or the second and why?

HOD

Re: OO and modules ( was Which book for ADA beginner ?)

[James Rogers]

Hans-Olof Danielsson wrote:
> 
> Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
> 
> >......
> > object orientation and modules are in principle orthoogonal concepts, and
> > that BOTH and SEPARATE are required to build well structured OO programs.
> 
> That�s interesting. Does that mean that adding, modifying or deleting an
> OO-object from a software system doesn�t effect the architecture of it as
> the architecture deals with components ( modules ) and their relationship?

I do not see how you can draw your conclusion from the above statement.
Encapsulation includes the definition of classes, but also includes the
definition of what some languages call "name space". This is the ability
to differentiate between two classes with the same name in the same 
program.

> 
> > C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk ond others are using classes for both purposes: OO
> and
> > encapsulation (say, modularization).

C++ has added a new feature called name spaces to allow the 
use and identification of multiple classes with the same name in a
single program. This feature was added because the original concept
of all encapsulation occurring only in the class was found to be
too limiting, particularly when trying to use pre-defined libraries.

> 
> > Ada95 and Oberon are two (well, maybe not
> > the ONLY two...) languages that separate these two notions.
> >......
> 
> and are therefore more expressive at the architectual level compared to the
> first group languages?

Actually, yes.

The ability to define groupings of class definitions does allow
greater expressive freedom than languages lacking such ability.

> And to which group does Java with its interface and package constructs
> belong, the first or the second and why?
> 

Java tries very hard to be like Eiffel and Smalltalk. However, Java
added its own versions of name spaces in JDK 1.1. Packages were added,
as well as top level nested classes. Both features exist solely to
provide the expressiveness of name spaces. 

I would assert that the developers of Java became aware of the need
for name spaces. They added two competing mechanisms to allow
the developer to implement name spaces. In the case of packages,
they also redefined the meaning of their access modifiers to allow
visibility which, IMHO weakens their encapsulation model.

Java interfaces are not related to inheritance. They are related to
polymorphism, which should never be confused with inheritance.
Polymorphism in Java is extended by interface implementation because
every class that implements an interface can be relied upon to
implement a method with the specific signature published in the
interface definition.  Syntactically, an interface definition is
just that, a definition of method signatures, with the occasional
addition of some constants.

Do not confuse Java interfaces with abstract classes. Java also
has abstract classes. Abstract classes become the basis for an
inheritance hierarchy, just as in Ada. Interfaces are never the
basis for an inheritance hierarchy. Java syntax makes this 
distinction very clear. Inheritance is achieved using the
"extends" keyword. Interfaces are implemented using the
"implements" keyword.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Brian Rogoff]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
> "Brian Rogoff" <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0101281019400.7734-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> > I can't speak for Andrzej, but I did notice on perusing the programs at
> > the web site
> >
> > http://www.brighton.ac.uk/ada95/programs/home.htm
> >
> > that Smith tends to use packages as classes. I'm not disposed towards that
> > approach, but I'm also not disposed towards "OO uber-alles" in general so
> > take that however you want to. I don't think that tagged records make
> > variant records obsolete (yes JE, I wish you'd change your book :), so
> > I'd like Ada books to cover a few approaches.
> >
> 
> Some people express the opinion that the necessary condition for a language
> to be OO is that this language has classes. These classes MUST be C++
> style.

I assume that you mean here that class mechanisms are used for
encapsulation control, or in the Eiffel terminology that classes are 
types are modules? I really dislike this kind of language. 

> Ada95 (and Oberon; it is interesting what was the impact of Oberon
> and Wirth's work on extensible types on Ada 95 design of tagged types, if any)
> has different mechanism. Moreover, it has been pointed out (see the book on component
> programming by Szyperski and his presentation on one of ECOOPs) that
> object orientation and modules are in principle orthoogonal concepts, and
> that BOTH and SEPARATE are required to build well structured OO programs.

OK, but even here I think the focus on OO is too strong. One can build
well structured, large, maintainable programs with no OO at all. Indeed, 
OO language features, like open recursion, are actually a bit dangerous,
and the flexibility they give you has to be managed carefully. 

One of the other OO languages I use, Ocaml, also has modules and classes. 
Since it has higher order functions, the need for OO style runtime
dispatch is significantly reduced. The functional language Erlang is also 
used to construct some very large programs and Erlang does not have OO 
features. 

> C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk ond others are using classes for both purposes: OO and
> encapsulation (say, modularization). Ada95 and Oberon are two (well, maybe not
> the ONLY two...) languages that separate these two notions. In other words, these
> languages are the only languages that make this RIGHT. Therefore, an attempt to
> emulate C++ classes in Ada95 just to have the same mechanisms as in
> C++ is not a prograss, it is a step backward.

I agree with this. Someone else points out that C++ has "namespaces" now. 
I believe that Sather, an Eiffel descendant, will get a simple module
system too. When teaching Ada one should learn about packages as a module
system, not as a way to hack Eiffel/C++ classes out of tagged records. 

-- Brian

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Mark Lundquist]

Andrzej Lewandowski <lewandoREMOVE@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3a74c829_2@news3.prserv.net...
>
>
> Some people express the opinion that the necessary condition for a
language
> to be OO is that this language has classes.

That's why I don't like the term OO, because it's used to mean
"class-oriented", and class-orientation is a vacant theory.  Then you get
into the "purity" nonsense.  If "purely OO" means "purely class-oriented",
how is that demonstratively good, or even significant?  It's about as
pointless as, let's say, defining "pure pizza" to mean not having tomato
sauce, and then calling everything else a "hybrid".

"Abstraction oriented" is, I think, both meaningful and useful; and as has
been pointed out, is bigger than just the idea of inheritance.

Mark Lundquist

Re: Which book for ADA beginner ?

[Mark Lundquist]

Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0101281019400.7734-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> I can't speak for Andrzej, but I did notice on perusing the programs at
> the web site
>
> http://www.brighton.ac.uk/ada95/programs/home.htm
>
> that Smith tends to use packages as classes.

Is that the style where the package is named after the abstraction, and then
all types get the name "Object"?  (I'm offline right now, so I can't see for
myself :-)

I find that style really distasteful and contrived and bizarre, definitely
not
"thinking in Ada", and I think the enslavement of ones thinking to
class-oriented programming is unproductive.

But that's just me... :-)

-- mark

Re: OO and modules ( was Which book for ADA beginner ?)

[Mark Lundquist]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1768 bytes --]


Hans-Olof Danielsson <Hans-Olof.Danielsson@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:mailman.980777779.24788.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
>
> >......
> > object orientation and modules are in principle orthoogonal concepts,
and
> > that BOTH and SEPARATE are required to build well structured OO
programs.
>
> That�s interesting. Does that mean that adding, modifying or deleting an
> OO-object from a software system doesn�t effect the architecture of it as
> the architecture deals with components ( modules ) and their relationship?

Of course, if you define "architecture" in such a way as to deal only with
those things.  Otherwise, not.

> > C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk ond others are using classes for both purposes:
OO
> and
> > encapsulation (say, modularization).
>
> > Ada95 and Oberon are two (well, maybe not
> > the ONLY two...) languages that separate these two notions.
> >......
>
> and are therefore more expressive at the architectual level compared to
the
> first group languages?

Yes, they are more expressive at the architectural level.

>
> And to which group does Java with its interface and package constructs
> belong, the first or the second and why?

I think it falls somewhere in between.  Java is a class-oriented language,
so it has classes which capture the encapsulation aspect of modularity, but
it also has packages which capture the namespace aspect of modularity.
Interfaces don't really directly have to do with modularity, although they
can be used to separate interface from implementation which is an aspect of
modularity.  However, they seem not to intended to be used this way on a
fine-grained basis -- you typically see it up higher, at the component level
(whatever that is :-)

Mark Lundquist

Re: OO and modules ( was Which book for ADA beginner ?)

[Mark Lundquist]

James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A759385.6BDA29D8@worldnet.att.net...
> [...]
> C++ has added a new feature called name spaces to allow the
> use and identification of multiple classes with the same name in
> single program. This feature was added because the original concept
> of all encapsulation occurring only in the class was found to be
> too limiting, particularly when trying to use pre-defined libraries.

The result is that C++ has three different modularity constructs:

1) From C, the file.  File-based scoping along with extern declarations are
the basis for the ".h/.C" convention.  Direct textual inclusion of header
files with the problems that attend to that approach.  No semantic
relationship between the header file and the "implementation file" (i.e. it
is legal C/C++ for the implementation file to not fulfill all the
protoptypes as declared in the header file.  You will get a link error if
all the symbol references are not satisfied somehow).

2) Classes

3) Namespaces

So you have these three things that kind of overlap and don't seem to
complement
each other particularly well.  I don't like it that namespaces can be
textually extended, which means that they don't mean the same thing in all
places.

The main thing to remember is that C++, like C, is still a linker-based
language.

-- mark