Re: Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[cmh@shemesh.larc.nasa.gov (C. Michael Holloway)]

>>>>> On 9 Mar 93 14:20:13 GMT, stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) said:

tt> ...  If we were spending our own money, we would design Ada 9X the way we
tt> did design it.  And in any case, like many people involved in computer
tt> science, spending our own money is not nearly as painful as spending our
tt> own time and energy.  It is our express goal, and always has been, that
tt> Ada 9X will be the language of choice for systems programmers who have a
tt> choice.  ...  There are many ways to skin a cat.  In many cases,
tt> imitation is not the most effective strategy.  Why choose Ada 9X if it
tt> makes the same mistakes that C++ does?  We should learn from the
tt> strengths and weaknesses of other languages, and advance the state of the
tt> art, not solidify it around a 1985-vintage design.

From a purely technical point of view, I agree with this completely. 
Mr. Taft and the mapping/revision team have designed an excellent language --
one that I would choose for systems programming, were I to do such
programming and to have such a choice. 

Were technical factors the only factors that mattered, then Ada 9X would be a
resounding success; unfortunately, technical factors are rarely even the most
important ones.  We can all think of numerous examples of technically
inferior products that have become successes (to avoid offending someone,
I'll refrain from listing a few examples that come to my mind).

This is especially true in programming languages, because in many companies,
agencies, projects, etc, technically knowledgeable people are not the ones who
make the decisions as to what programming language will be used.  That's not
the way that things ought to be, but it is the way that things are in many
places. 

Personally, I am fully persuaded by Mr. Taft's arguments for the current
syntax and semantics of the object-oriented aspects of Ada 9X.  But that
syntax may well prevent the language from being used in many places; enough
places, I am afraid, to doom it to commercial failure.  In fact, if Mr. Taft
were to make these arguments to high level managers, the end of the
discussion might well resemble Paul's discussion with Festus in Acts 26 (to
paraphrase):

  Now as Mr. Taft thus made his defense, Mr. Manager said with a loud voice,
  "Tucker, you are beside yourself!  Much learning is driving you mad!"

  But he said, "I am not mad, most noble manager, but speak the words of
  truth and reason."

Now, Paul was discussing eternal truth and could not compromise his message,
but since Ada 9X is a little more temporal, some compromise ought to be
possible.

=================================================================
C. Michael Holloway             Email: c.m.holloway@LaRC.NASA.GOV
NASA Langley Research Center    Fax:   1 804 864 4234
Mail Stop 130                   Voice: 1 804 864 1701
Hampton VA 23681-0001 
--
=================================================================
C. Michael Holloway             Email: c.m.holloway@LaRC.NASA.GOV
NASA Langley Research Center    Fax:   1 804 864 4234
Mail Stop 130                   Voice: 1 804 864 1701
Hampton VA 23681-0001           Verse: Psalm 97:1