Ada95 and .NET

Ada95 and .NET

[Kai Gläsner]

Hello community,

after using GNATCOM for several prototypes and after using
GNATCOM-objects succesfully under the Microsoft  Beta 1 .NET framework,
I would like to know if there are plans for a genuine GNAT.NET port.
From my point of view the implications of this new platform seem to be
very large.

Thanks in advance for the answer

Kai

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[Juergen Pfeifer]

> after using GNATCOM for several prototypes and after using
> GNATCOM-objects succesfully under the Microsoft  Beta 1 .NET framework,
> I would like to know if there are plans for a genuine GNAT.NET port.
> From my point of view the implications of this new platform seem to be
> very large.
>
They will be, for sure. But I don't believe that you'll see a quality
GNAT.NET
in the near future. ACT is driven by customer demand (customer here means
people who pay for the service). This is the only working approach for a
small
company making its revenue from selling product support and services.

I guess with .NET the same will happen as happened initially with Win2000.
People are biased against Microsoft and anti-MS FUD will keep people away
from .NET, like happened with Win2000. Then, after a while the facts can't
be
ignored. Nowadays you see a lot of people and companies realizing that
Win2000 is technically very good, performant and stable. They install it and
use it for production. The same will happen to .NET and that means, that ACT
may have customer demand for GNAT.NET in maybe 12-18 month from now.

My 2c.

J�rgen

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[William J. Thomas]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 969 bytes --]


"Kai Gl�sner" wrote

> I would like to know if there are plans for a genuine GNAT.NET port.
> From my point of view the implications of this new platform seem to be
> very large.
>

If doing so would by any means give Ada an early in-road to a new market, or
put Ada in a position of being 'out in front' or 'just in time' for a
change, then you can almost bet that it will be a good two years ( or
however long it takes to possibly have no positive impact at all) before you
will see an implementation for the .NET platform.  And when you do see Ada
on the .NET platform you can be sure it will be some kludged superficial
hack that requires contortions, cranks, and incantations to fire up just a
Console application. An implementation that fully embraces the .NET concepts
along with a full blown 'state of the art' kick ass GUI builder, well.....
Just be thankful that you have Ada for embedded systems and leave the .NET
GUI world to C#.

William J. Thomas

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[Marin David Condic]

Well, that's a little like tossing a stink-bomb into the room. :-)

Its unfortunate that there is a perception out there that Ada is inevitably
going to miss the boat on a newly emerging environment, simply because it is
Ada and hence, can't win. (Sort of the Al Bundy of programming languages?
:-) I'd like to think that Ada is nicely positioned to be directed at a new,
emerging environment and that all it takes is for someone to jump at the
opportunity & get to market first and all will be rosy in the Ada world.
Unfortunately, I can understand where you come from on this. All too often,
Ada has just managed to show up a day late and a dollar short so that it
ends up in the "Also Ran" category.

The problem is that even if there is a wonderful new environment in which
Ada could take the lead, it all too often requires major resources to take a
stab at capturing it. The technical development is costly enough, but then
there's the sales and marketing effort that has to be done and that can be
far more costly. Who has that kind of money to invest?

Probably the most likely growth path for Ada is to get into some small,
emerging environment that is being built by a handfull of geeks or a small
company or community of users. If that environment succeeds, then Ada flies
with it. Trying to bust into a market of millions of users against industry
giant competitors is a bit unlikely. I think Sun Tsu had something to say on
the subject.....

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/



"William J. Thomas" <wjthomas@wcvt.com> wrote in message
news:tdfn7gao7n1q28@corp.supernews.com...
> If doing so would by any means give Ada an early in-road to a new market,
or
> put Ada in a position of being 'out in front' or 'just in time' for a
> change, then you can almost bet that it will be a good two years ( or
> however long it takes to possibly have no positive impact at all) before
you
> will see an implementation for the .NET platform.  And when you do see Ada
> on the .NET platform you can be sure it will be some kludged superficial
> hack that requires contortions, cranks, and incantations to fire up just a
> Console application. An implementation that fully embraces the .NET
concepts
> along with a full blown 'state of the art' kick ass GUI builder, well.....
> Just be thankful that you have Ada for embedded systems and leave the .NET
> GUI world to C#.
>

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[David Botton]

As was pointed out, using GNATCOM you already have access to .NET's GUI and
common runtime library. Granted that doing so may be considered by you a bit
of a "Kludge" since it is being accessed through COM instead of by
interpreted C# code. I would though say Ada is not exactly in the backseet
for .NET support.

A true .NET port is certainly a thought in many peoples mind and a fairly
realistic project since .NET is not much more then MS's old JVM with a twist
or two. A little work and JGNAT could be singing .NET. I think that when the
time is ripe there will be commercial and/or volunteer Ada.NETs running
around.

David Botton



----- Original Message -----
From: "William J. Thomas" <wjthomas@wcvt.com>

> If doing so would by any means give Ada an early in-road to a new market,
or
> put Ada in a position of being 'out in front' or 'just in time' for a
> change, then you can almost bet that it will be a good two years ( or
> however long it takes to possibly have no positive impact at all) before
you
> will see an implementation for the .NET platform.  And when you do see Ada
> on the .NET platform you can be sure it will be some kludged superficial
> hack that requires contortions, cranks, and incantations to fire up just a
> Console application. An implementation that fully embraces the .NET
concepts
> along with a full blown 'state of the art' kick ass GUI builder, well.....
> Just be thankful that you have Ada for embedded systems and leave the .NET
> GUI world to C#.

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[William Dale]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Well, that's a little like tossing a stink-bomb into the room. :-)
> 
> Its unfortunate that there is a perception out there that Ada is inevitably
> going to miss the boat on a newly emerging environment, simply because it is
> Ada and hence, can't win. (Sort of the Al Bundy of programming languages?
> :-) 

I think its more of the Homer Simpson of programming languages - it does
work at Nuclear Power plants?  ;-)  

Bill Dale

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[Ayende Rahien]

"David Botton" <David@Botton.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.987435136.1872.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> As was pointed out, using GNATCOM you already have access to .NET's GUI
and
> common runtime library. Granted that doing so may be considered by you a
bit
> of a "Kludge" since it is being accessed through COM instead of by
> interpreted C# code. I would though say Ada is not exactly in the backseet
> for .NET support.

A> C# is not an (only) interpreted language.
B> I think he meant a compiler that will:
    1) allow you to use/inherit/be father of all of .NET compatible classes.
    2) compile to IL.

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[Marin David Condic]

As I understand it, to "Homer" something up, one must succeed in spite of
enormous ineptitude and incompetence. A gratuitous example: To fall asleep
at the control pannel of the nuclear power plant and accidentally bump the
"off" switch in the midst of a reactor scram, thus becoming a hero while
being derilect in one's duty. I'd like to think Ada is more anti-Homer: It
manages to fail in spite of enormous capability while lesser languages go on
to success.

In contrast, Al Bundy could win the lottery and be riding high, only to know
that at any minute the IRS is going to come along and slam him in jail while
Peggy spends the whole wad on cosmetics. - But Ada isn't quite like that
because it has not experienced some kind of enormous success only to have it
snatched away.

Maybe its more the Drew Carey of programming languages. Great at its job,
but never recognized and always tormented by its ugly co-worker, Mimi. (C is
the "Mimi" of programming languages?)

Well, this has drifted a bit far afield, eh? :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"William Dale" <william.dale.jr+adanews@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3ADB1CCA.9FE756B9@lmco.com...
> I think its more of the Homer Simpson of programming languages - it does
> work at Nuclear Power plants?  ;-)
>

Re: Ada95 and .NET

[Ed Falis]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Maybe its more the Drew Carey of programming languages. Great at its
> job,
> but never recognized and always tormented by its ugly co-worker, Mimi.
> (C is
> the "Mimi" of programming languages?)
>
> Well, this has drifted a bit far afield, eh? :-)

Actually, Rodney Dangerfield comes to mind.

- Ed