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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,71dcda1787f0bed5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Success: Ada versus C Date: 1997/06/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 246609052 References: <33984686.9A8@gdls.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Arthur Schwarz wrote: > RC wrote: > > Had Ada been around when C and Unix were developed, I'm sure it would > > have had a better head start. > > Ada 'was' around when C started, tho' in another form. The immediate > predecessor to Ada was Pascal. At the time that Pascal was introduced > it was immediately hailed as an innovation over existing languages and > was in general felt to be superior to it's competitors, Fortran and > Cobol. During the beginning 80's, fast, cheap, and relatively good > compilers for Pascal were available (ala Borland). Despite its > deficiencies, it was gradually being expanded in capability, supplanted > by other 'better' languages (Ada and Modula for two), and then it > died. I've heard reasons why. I don't understand them. But it died > as it appears that Ada might. I disagree with your fundamental premises. Pascal is not "dead", it spawned successors (Ada 83/95, The Modulas (1,2,3), Oberon, Delphi, Object-Pascal...). Programming languages evolve. If you look at Pascal and say it is dead because ISO Pascal is not popular, I could claim that Lisp is dead because (almost) no one uses Lisp 1.5. > I don't mean to poke fun at you but I can't understand it either. I > do know that from a 'rabid supporter' for Ada in the 80's, I'm only > lukewarm now. I do find learning the language tortuous and compiling, > linking a real burden. Ada is big, and I certainly wish that a simplified Ada could be developed, but I am unhappy with the alternatives (Modula 3 and Oberon). I don't find learning Ada "tortuous", especially compared to C++. > For 'simple' projects it is seems undually complex. (I believe you mean "unduly") I disagree. You can definitely "hack" with Ada 95. In fact, it is more fun for me to hack with Ada 95 than with C, because I'm one of those dummies who makes mistakes and Ada usually catches them up front, so I don't use a debugger. Hacking without debugging is great! The problem is that there aren't always usable interfaces to libraries that I want, which is more of an "environment" problem than a language one. > For long-term, large scale projects I believe the Ada > advocates, it is good. But very often, small inconsequential projects > done within a larger framework become major future efforts. Maybe > this is where Ada fails to have a 'draw'. Being geared to projects > which start large and continue, it is not able to attract projects > which start small and grow. I don't know, when I read the Ada news- > groups I see a lot of stridency for a viewpoint without many concessions > for success. So I personally don't see a large future for the language. I don't follow this last paragraph... > As a non-sequitor, when I tried to learn rather than just admire the > language (in the 80's) I had a great deal of difficulty. Being an > experienced (and arrogant) programmer, I really didn't want a tutorial > and didn't want to spend time with the LRM. I couldn't find books > which were not tutorial and I did find that the LRM was all but > impenetrable. In terms of C (now, not then), I use a book by Harbison > and Steele, "C, A Reference Manual". For me it is an unqualified > success. To this day I don't know of a comparable book in Ada. Ada as a second language, 2nd Edition, Norman Cohen. (Somehow I lucked out and bought this book for $32, now I see it for > $60 US). This is my favorite Ada book. Programming in Ada 95 by Barnes What would really be useful to me is an advanced Ada 95 programming book, like Coplien's C++ book. > My feeling is that it is time to stop congratulating ourselves. It is > time to develop an appreciation for our potential audience. The language > won't sell itself and strong advocacy is not the same as many and > enthusiastic user's. The articles that I see telling about Ada's > successes and its future seem to be a cry of desparation. "Why can't > people see the superiority of Ada over C/C++?". Good question. What's > the answer. Write Ada code and make it available for use. -- Brian