Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?

[jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4pk5sm$i7k@gde.GDEsystems.COM> Michael Levasseur <levass@gdesystems.com> writes:

> Alot of these issues are very relevant.

No doubt.


> Ada to C is farely painless. Interfacing Ada to 4GL, commercial
> applications, C++ or JAVA are all a major undertaking.
                       ^^^^
Interfacing to Java is cake.  What are you talking about?


> The loss of credible compiler companies - As the number of credible
> compiler companies shinks and DoD software budgets continue to
> shink getting a vendor for the particular platform are harder and
> also more expensive. 

Well, this sounds good, it's just wrong.  Gnat is free and of better
overall quality than all but the very best Ada83 compilers.  I would
say it is about on par with the best (ahead here, behind there - over
all a wash).  Thomson's ObjectAda compiler is dirt cheap for personal
use and the professional version is cheaper than a "professional" C++
package.  Also, Gnat is on all sorts of platforms.  And since
ObjectAda uses the Intermetrics AdaMagic frontend, it will likely be
all over the place too (or at least highly compatible counterparts
based on the same frontend).

No, overall, this situation is _vastly_ better today than before.


> Ada has not and probably never will overcome
> the stigma of being developed by the Government.

Very legitimate problem.


> Company Management - Many DoD companies now don't really worry
> about complying with the DoD directive. They just tell the
> customer that inorder to meet timeing and space requirements
> C or C++ must be used. This is usually bogus, Ada can usually

Agreed.  There seems to be a real "Mommy! Mommy! Me too! Me too!"
mentality in these people, and that sort of infantilism(wd?) is hard
to overcome.  You certainly can't use reason or logic or facts...

> DoD Management - The DoD lets the companies get away with this
> and as DoD's clout diminishes as DoD companies start to work on 
> comercial companies as well as software engineers don't want to
> chase a skill/tool that is going to die!!!

While there is certainly a problem of perception here, I don't think
this is that big of a deal.  There is evidence of Ada getting some
good press and rational people are taking a real look.  The irrational
incompetents are the last thing you want glomming on to it.  They've
even managed to make C++ look worse than it is (no mean feat...)


> your door" is incorrect. Although Ada is better, C and C++ will
> probably be the winner. Remember Beta vs. VHS or IBM vs. MAC.

If you are speaking of sheer overall popularity, "will" can be
replaced by "is" and C++ can be dropped.  Nothing is anywhere near as
"popular" as C (including C++).  Second, we are not talking mass
market economics here anyway.  The VHS/Beta and IBM/Mac analogies
aren't really relevant.  The man in the street isn't going to be
"programming" in C any more than Ada.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com