From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7251fa99aab97e06 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-09 18:14:14 PST Path: sparky!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!shemesh!cmh From: cmh@shemesh.larc.nasa.gov (C. Michael Holloway) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X Date: 9 Mar 93 14:55:59 Organization: NASA Langley Research Center ISD/SVMB Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1993Mar8.153639.3603@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <1993Mar8.162831.8767@seas.gwu.edu> <1993Mar9.142013.22041@inmet.camb.inmet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shemesh.larc.nasa.gov In-reply-to: stt@spock.camb.inmet.com's message of 9 Mar 93 14:20:13 GMT Comments: Hyperbole mail buttons accepted, v3.06. Date: 1993-03-09T14:55:59+00:00 List-Id: >>>>> 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