Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Markus E Leypold" <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> 
wrote in message >
>
> I'm a bit surprised, actually. I would have thought Pascal simpler to
> learn.
>
It depends on what you want students to learn.   At an equivalent
level to Pascal, Ada is easier to learn primarily due to its improved
consistency of syntax.   At the more advanced level, it is more difficult
because of the difference in design issues.

Ease of learning should not an important factor when considering the
adoption of a programming language.   Python is amazingly easy to
learn.  So is Ruby.  Both are excellent languages. I like them both. Neither
is the right choice for safety-critical embedded systems.

C++ is not easy to learn.   To do C++ safely is really hard to learn. In
this case, it is easier to learn how to safe programming in Ada than in
C++.

Most of the time C++ and Ada are both taught badly.    That can make
them hard to learn.   The most frequently overlooked dimension of Ada
that is misunderstood by those who try to teach it is the scope and
visibility rules.    Yet that, not strong typing, is at the heart of the design
of the language.   It is sad that most instructors who try to teach Ada
don't understand those rules well enough to show how important they
are to being a good Ada programmer/designer.

With Ada, once a someone understands Chapter Eight of the ALRM, the
rest of the language issues fall into place quite easily.

Richard Riehle