Comment on Ada usage

Comment on Ada usage

[Wes Groleau]

In embedded systems: ADA [sic] is used less than Forth ?
http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20010813S0073

-- 
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: Comment on Ada usage

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3B82CD0B.4A551A42@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, Wes Groleau says...
>
>
>In embedded systems: ADA [sic] is used less than Forth ?
>http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20010813S0073

That was a reader survey. In the article he comes right out and says this isn't
even close to scientific. He even points out some places where their numbers are
horribly at odds with more scientific polls.

I'd be more interested in Jerry Petry's opinion of his charactarization of Forth
vs. Ada, as he's a fan of both languages (whereas this guy obviously isn't).

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Comment on Ada usage

[Marin David Condic]

As with most surveys, I suppose it depends on how you do the counting.

Suppose you credit 4-bit and 8-bit computers as "Embedded Computers" and
treat installed volume as the basis for determining the popularity of the
programming language. Since there are a really large number of really small
microcontrollers showing up in just about everything, that could make the
numbers look very different.

In those small machines things like C and probably Forth are going to be
real popular - does Ada even play in that arena? Assembler might rank high
for a number of these devices - but for anything compiled, you need a fairly
small language and I don't think Ada is a good fit there. Apparently the
compiler writers agree because they're staying away from that market in
droves.

While I'd like to see Ada available for really small machines, I don't know
that its ever been done. That would account for an enormously large amount
of disinterest in Ada within that world. You've probably got to get to
16-bit embedded machines (fewer out there than 4 & 8 bit) before Ada even
shows up on the horizon and you've got to get to 32-bit embeded machines
(fewer still) before Ada starts having lots of implementations.

You can't totally ignore a market and then whine that the players in that
market don't like your product. Go after the market or conceed the territory
to C - but don't complain that embedded programmers don't go for Ada unless
you're there to play the game. Given where Embedded.Com is coming from, I
don't doubt that the numbers are somewhere close to accurate.

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/


"Wes Groleau" <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote in message
news:3B82CD0B.4A551A42@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com...
>
> In embedded systems: ADA [sic] is used less than Forth ?
> http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20010813S0073
>
> --
> Wes Groleau
> http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: Comment on Ada usage

[Marin David Condic]

Well, he did say a nice (if inaccurate) thing about Ada - that he thought
all compilers should have the kind of validation Ada has. His observation is
that Ada compilers don't have bugs as a result - something that demonstrates
he's never used an Ada compiler seriously! It might be accurate to say that
Ada compilers have substantially fewer "bugs" and/or diversions from the
standard due to validation.

Still, the tone was definitely condescending to both of us Ada programmers.
:-) Of course, complaining about it isn't going to help - basically he's
right. There isn't much Ada use in embedded systems compared to C(++) and
the guys doing that work aren't terribly fond of Ada. The way to correct the
attitude he has is to correct the problem - make Ada more available and more
popular and then we don't have to whine when someone picks on our favorite
language.

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/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:EgAg7.9667$2u.71724@www.newsranger.com...
>
> That was a reader survey. In the article he comes right out and says this
isn't
> even close to scientific. He even points out some places where their
numbers are
> horribly at odds with more scientific polls.
>
> I'd be more interested in Jerry Petry's opinion of his charactarization of
Forth
> vs. Ada, as he's a fan of both languages (whereas this guy obviously
isn't).

Re: Comment on Ada usage

[Wes Groleau]

> >In embedded systems: ADA [sic] is used less than Forth ?
> >http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20010813S0073
> 
> That was a reader survey. In the article he comes right out and says this isn't
> even close to scientific. He even points out some places where their numbers are


And upon looking around, I found another page where they had a survey
that put Ada on top.  They "pulled it" because "obviously there was
something wrong with our methods."  To ensure better results, they
assigned the job to Gaansle.  Who managed to get Ada on the bottom.
Looks like the picked the right guy for the job they wanted?

Not that I am claiming Ada is really on top, but I kind of doubt
it's on the bottom, either.  Just that the attitude that they
APPEAR to have guarantees bogus results.

-- 
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: Comment on Ada usage

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9lukgq$f5f$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
>Still, the tone was definitely condescending to both of us Ada programmers.
>:-) Of course, complaining about it isn't going to help - basically he's
>right. There isn't much Ada use in embedded systems compared to C(++) and
>the guys doing that work aren't terribly fond of Ada. The way to correct the

One of the more respectable industry survery numbers he mentioned put Ada at
%10. That's obviously not a majority, but neither is it an insignificant number
that can be freely ignored, like he goes on to imply. 

Then again, about %10 of all people are left handed like me, but everyone
building manually-manipuated objects acts like we don't exist either. So its not
like this annoying attitude is unique to this one author, or even programming
languages in general.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Comment on Ada usage

[Marin David Condic]

10% sounds a little closer to reality. However, one needs to consider the
readership of Embedded.Com. What percentage of them use Ada? That could
account for skewing the results to the near-zero number they got. I suspect
that most of their readership builds smaller consumer-oriented devices
rather than large-scale railroad & air traffic control systems, defense and
aerospace systems, etc. Ada certainly has made an effort to convince the
large scale, safety critical, long lived community that it has advantages
and you see that in a larger percentage of those projects going with Ada.
But what about the fast-time-to-market, low-cost, small-scale,
who-cares-if-it-has-a-few-glitches, consumer electronics industry? What does
Ada do to appeal to that market? (It *could* play a bigger role there, but
it has to cater more to that customer by understanding his needs &
satisfying them.)

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/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:zKQg7.10632$2u.76196@www.newsranger.com...
> One of the more respectable industry survery numbers he mentioned put Ada
at
> %10. That's obviously not a majority, but neither is it an insignificant
number
> that can be freely ignored, like he goes on to imply.
>
> Then again, about %10 of all people are left handed like me, but everyone
> building manually-manipuated objects acts like we don't exist either. So
its not
> like this annoying attitude is unique to this one author, or even
programming
> languages in general.
>

Re: Comment on Ada usage

[Jerry Petrey]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
> In article <3B82CD0B.4A551A42@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, Wes Groleau says...
> >
> >
> >In embedded systems: ADA [sic] is used less than Forth ?
> >http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20010813S0073
> 
> That was a reader survey. In the article he comes right out and says this isn't
> even close to scientific. He even points out some places where their numbers are
> horribly at odds with more scientific polls.
> 
> I'd be more interested in Jerry Petry's opinion of his charactarization of Forth
> vs. Ada, as he's a fan of both languages (whereas this guy obviously isn't).
> 
> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com


I couldn't resist Ted.

I have had two articles published in ESP, one on Forth in 1989 and one
on
Ada in 1995.  After each, when I proposed a follow up article, I was
told by
the editor that they did not want to publish 'too many' articles on
languages
other than C or C++ because they didn't want to 'offend' their readers
and
advertisers - most of whom they considered C and C++ fans.  Jack Ganssle
is one
of their writers who has such a strong bias against both Forth and Ada
(which
he can't even spell correctly).

I used to work for Forth, Inc. which was founded by the inventor of
Forth,
Chuck Moore.  It is still run by the world's second Forth programmer,
Elizabeth
Rather.  I used Forth a lot in the 1980's and designed and taught some
Forth 
classes. I was always impressed by its power and simplicity.  You could
do so 
much with so little memory.  The whole Forth system with compiler,
editor,
assembler, debugger would fit in less than 20K bytes on the target and
you 
could develop and interactively test your application on the target over
a 
serial link from a terminal or PC.  It was especially great for testing
out
new hardware.  You could write quick routines to repeatedly exercise
certain
parts of the hardware so you sync up a scope and really see what was
happening.
At Forth, Inc., we helped FedEX implement their handheld package scanner
in Forth
after they had failed to get it to work using C.  We implemented a
complete airport
control system in the Middle East with some 400 processors all running
Forth.
It is still used a lot more today than people realize (such as in the
boot PROMs of
Sun workstations) but like Ada it is more of a competitive secret and
embedded in
things where you wouldn't be aware of the language used.

When I first started looking at Ada in the late 80's, I was similarly
impressed
with its power and simplicity.  Even though Forth and Ada were vastly
different,
I saw some similarities in the Forth philosophy and the Ada philosophy. 
In Forth,
although it was not enforced by the language, we used a component
programming 
approach where you would define interface words (a word is like a
subprogram)
and implementation words.  You could build an application where the
underlying
implementation could be changed (faster algorithm or even re-coded in
Forth's
in-line assembler) and the users would not be affected as long as they
adhered
to the interface.  By proper choice of names of words, Forth could even
be made
quite readable - in spite of its popular criticism to the contrary). 
For
example, the top level application for a washing machine control might
be:

: Washing_Machine   Wash Delay_1 Rinse Delay_2 Spin Delay_3 Stop ;

The : starts a definition (and the incremental compiler) and the ; ends
it.  
The first word is the name of the procedure and the remaining words are 
lower level words previously defined.  These words would control the 
actual hardware - motors, relays, timers, etc.

Forth is very useful for smaller microprocessors with limited resources
such as older RAD hardened processors used in space and military
applications.
 
Ada is my choice for large applications.  I wish it was available on
smaller
8-bit processors as well but I'm certainly glad that Forth almost always
is.


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                  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------