Re: In Defense of the Mandate

[enterpoop.mit.edu!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.ne]

>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 1993 04:42:37 GMT, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
>>> Aharonian) said:


(someone)> 	I claim that an arbitrary embedded system (J) written in
(someone)> Ada is (on average) easier for an independent programming
(someone)> team to understand and subsequently enhance than one written
(someone)> in any previous language.  Thus, it is easier for independent
(someone)> programming teams to create variants of that system (J', J'',
(someone)> J'''.....) than it would be if J were written in some older
(someone)> language.  That capability is needed if we have to fight
(someone)> protracted conflicts like World War II, Korea, or VietNam.

And it is terribly important. But I would like to refer to a Feynman
argument that is terribly important, especially in war: quick is
beautiful. One could argue that Ada programs can be developed more
quickly as the language is "better", but unfortunately most of an
application is not bespoke, and Ada has a distinct disadvantage when it
comes to environments/components:

Aharonian> Unfortunately, a growing number of real soldiers disagree
Aharonian> with you, and are using C/C++.  For example, there was that
Aharonian> Army group involved with JINTACCS that developed a fielded
Aharonian> communications system in C++ using Motif.  Or people
Aharonian> trhoughout the Air Force using C++ for database development.

Which is a catstrophe, as C/C++ are far more insecure, problematic,
difficult to teach languages than Ada *for applications*.

Unfortunately Ada has two huge problems, and the second is a consequence
of the first:

* cheap compilers are not available, if at all.

* a distinct lack of environmental, ready mode software.

A lot of C's success is because of the abundant supply of essentially
free compilers, being bundled with most Unix variants, and most Unix
variants were in any case free to Universities. Every time Unix has been
ported to a new architecture, a new compiler has become available as a
side effect, and usually for free with Unix.

It was also possible to license the C compiler source from AT&T for
something like $4,000, and a similar price used to apply to the C++
frontend. Every little sw house has been able to offer their own C++
compiler product as a consequence.

I tend to agree with Aaronian's comment that it is the mandate, and the
price floor it guarantees to Ada compiler vendors, the main cause for
Ada's stilted diffusion.

Also, no major application/system sw is written in Ada and requires an
Ada compiler. If X windows had been coded in Ada, say, now every X port
would have as a side effect an Ada port, and all people using X would
have a storng incentive to learn Ada.

But there is no major application/system sw in Ada simply because to
become 'major' in the wide world (outside the mandated area) a product
has to be essentially free, and require essentially free development
tools, otherwise research centers and Unviersities, that have th
institutional incentive to try new things, will not adopt it.

If, for example, 386BSD/Linux were written/rewritten in Ada, or if the
conditions for them to be written in Ada existed, Ada would become more
popular than C++, probably.