Re: NOACE- End of the road for Ada?

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Jared" <nowhere@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message
news:S39Zd.1389$fO6.3528@news.uswest.net...
>
> Java, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this
group, is basically C++
> with all the bad parts removed and with garbage
collection added.  Java is
> comfortable to all the C people, because of its
syntax, because of its
> culture, and because it pretends to share the
C++ idioms.
>
A strange argument, but a common one.

Ada's syntax is not less comfortable than the
syntax of the C family.  In fact,
I find the C family syntax rather annoying, not
particularly intuitive, and full
of contradictions and work-arounds.

It seems that, once the industry gets used to
doing things the hard way, the
people in that industry come to believe that that
is the natural way.   I am
reminded of old women in Southeast Asia who used
to use short-handled
brooms.   They stooped over them day after day
after day, and many of
them, when introduced to long-handled brooms,
continued to stoop over
those brooms just as they had with short-handled
brooms.

You mentioned Ruby.   Nice language.   Not
type-safe, but at least the
curly braces are gone!

Every time I confront someone in a decision-making
capacity about their
choice of C++ over Ada, and more recently Java
over Ada, the answer
comes down to, "Well, we agree that Ada is
probably better for coding
weapon systems, but we can find more trained C++
programmers than
Ada programmers."

Yes. The decision is made not on the basis of
language quality.  Rather it
is, "We cannot find enough Ada programmers."
Sometimes it is, "No one
wants to program in Ada."   I have not been able
to bring myself to view
these reasons as other than either deranged of
stupid.   Am I going to let
a mechanic who has no experience with a torque
wrench do serious work
on my car just because I am having trouble finding
one who does know
how to use a torque wrench.    Oh, yes.  When I
need open-heart
surgery, I suppose any physician with a set of
sharp scapels, and a
modest knowledge of anesthisology and heart
disease do the job.  After
all, it is too hard to find a good physician
trained in using the right tools.

My worry is that these contractors are building
weapon systems using
inferior tools.   Ada is the torque wrench of
programming languages.
People's lives are at risk.  I find it scary that
the contractors are making
decisions in favor of languages that are
inherently featuring dangerous
constructs, languages that require such care in
their use that, on at least
one major project, they have opted for such a
"safe" subset that they
have practically eliminated the reasons for using
an object-oriented
language in their restrictive rules.

Perhaps expediency does not impact quality.
Perhaps, also we won't
know the answer to that question for many years,
the length of time
it takes to develop certain of our major weapon
systems in progress.
By then, those senior managers who have made the
decisions will
have retired, been promoted out of harm's way, or
moved to some
other job and accountability will have vanished
with them.

Ada has proven itself effective in building weapon
systems.  It has been
shown to be excellent in safety-critical software.
There is no good reason
to ignore its benefits just to follow the hype of
today's popular flavor.
For managers to allow themselves to be intimidated
by a lot of people
who can't get over their need for curly braces is
unconscionable.

"The horror!  The horror!"

Richard Riehle