From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 7 Jun 93 20:29:56 GMT From: enterpoop.mit.edu!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.ne t!torn!nott!bnrgate!bnr.co.uk!uknet!gdt!aber!fronta.aber.ac.uk!pcg@ucbvax.Berke ley.EDU (Piercarlo Grandi) Subject: Re: In Defense of the Mandate Message-ID: List-Id: >>> 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.