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: 10fec3,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid10fec3,public X-Google-Thread: 108a70,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108a70,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 111308,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid111308,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108717,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-14 23:24:39 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.databases.sybase,comp.databases.oracle,comp.client-server Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!olivea!uunet!ois!beckwb From: beckwb@ois.com (R. William Beckwith) Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada? Message-ID: Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.databases.sybase,comp.databases.oracle,comp.client-server Organization: Objective Interface Systems, Inc. X-Newsreader: TIN version 1.2 PL2 References: <3a6oc5$dkh@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 02:36:58 GMT Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.lang.ada:16704 comp.lang.c:68554 comp.programming:12796 comp.lang.c++:78905 comp.object:17401 comp.databases.sybase:12992 comp.databases.oracle:22201 comp.client-server:6814 Date: 1994-11-15T02:36:58+00:00 List-Id: : Forth because of object oriented : requirements that ada does not match up with(some say C++ is more object : oriented than ada) Similarities with Modulus-2(just kidding). .) : I don't think it will ever really gain in popularity, more than it has. : Developers are pushing toward a system with a more pure object oriented : environment than ada can offer. I.E. Smalltalk. Which is where I would : put money the industry will move. Not necessarly Smalltalk but some : dirivative. I am certain to catch hell for this from some ada devote's, : but for what ada was supposed to do, no one can deny it got off to a : bad start. Jeff Reinholz (reinholz@SG0D12.sig01) wrote: : Spending a couple years with ada environments in the defense industry : I can add my two cents worth as to how ada go a lousy reputation. One becuase : of large object code and ada compiler companies inability to stick to : a standard. In my experience the Ada 83 compilers are much closer to the Ada standard than C compilers are to the ANSI C standard. Smalltalk and C++ have no standard yet. : Secondly because there are a vast number of C programmers and : a comparitivly small handful of ada programmers to maintain code. The defense cutbacks have improved the availability of good Ada programmers in the U.S. ;-) I'll bet if three equally bright C programmers start learning respectively Ada 9X, C++, and Smalltalk-XX, that the one learning Ada 9X will produce working (non-leaking, robust, etc.) software sooner than the C++ programmer and about par with the Smalltalk programmer. My hunch is that the Smalltalk programmer will build smaller (working) systems faster and the Ada 9X programmer will build larger (working) systems faster. (I have no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. Just my intuition and past discussions with large Ada, C++, and Smalltalk shops. :-) : Third that : same readablility of code creates a over developed syntax that can be : cumbersome in many applications. Examples? I've never heard this one. Most find Ada's syntax elegant and clean. Smalltalk is a least consistent. C++ occasionally reminds me of my APL days (not always a bad thing). : Forth because of object oriented : requirements that ada does not match up with(some say C++ is more object : oriented than ada) Similarities with Modulus-2(just kidding). .) I guess you quit using Ada before Ada 9X was out. There is a GNU version of Ada 9X in cs.nyu.edu::pub/gnat. It is not a complete compiler yet but it is helpful when learning the new language. : I don't think it will ever really gain in popularity, more than it has. : Developers are pushing toward a system with a more pure object oriented : environment than ada can offer. I.E. Smalltalk. Which is where I would : put money the industry will move. Not necessarly Smalltalk but some : dirivative. Ada 9X _is_ a pure, strongly-typed, object-oriented language. IMHO, Ada 9x is not a pure as Smalltalk but more pure than C++. BTW, you can use very weak typing in your class hierarchy with Ada 9X (if you are willing to accept the Ada equivalent of `message not understood'). Interesting to note, ParcPlace is working on adding strong typing features to VisualWorks. : I am certain to catch hell for this from some ada devote's, : but for what ada was supposed to do, no one can deny it got off to a : bad start. No hell. You have a right to your opinion. I might suggest that Ada did quite well considering the popularity of Ada outside of the U.S. and the good success of Ada within the U.S. Dept of Defense. ... Bill -- e-mail: Bill.Beckwith@ois.com | Team Ada Objective Interface Systems, Inc. | dist, full O-O 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 250 | multithreading Reston, VA 22091-5448 U.S.A. | built in