Re: Datapro announces survey of ObjectOrient languages

[world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian)]

>Is the much more sedate pace of Ada-9X evangelization (yes, Virginia,
>there is such a thing) equally appropriate for a different part of
>the marketplace?  I am referring to systems where the computer is
>part of a large, expensive piece of equipment, development projects
>involve many people, and large bodies of code must be maintained
>over times measured in decades.  In this sector, Ada-83 seems to have
>been successful, regardless of the Mandate.  I think Ada-9X will
>do very well, but maybe Mr. Aharonian is right in wanting us to
>sing its praises more loudly and clearly.

    There are many large, systems engineering in the non-Mandated world
being done in a variety of languages, most not in Ada.  In all of these
cases, vendors offer products and services very aggressively, with
active sales campaigns and discounts and deals to push their products.
So Ada has choice but to be marketed as agressively as possible now.
The sedate approach is for losers, or people who really don't believe 
in their product.
    Also, you are wrong about Ada's success, at least in the non-Mandated
world.  Dollar wise and percentage wise, Ada is not doing very well being
choosen, which is different from not being chosen at all.

>There is one important feature of Ada (83 or 9X) that C++ utterly
>lacks: the program library.  In Ada-land, we take it for granted that
>the compiler knows all about the entire set of modules that have been
>compiled into one "program library."  This is especially important in
>long-term multi-person projects.  I understand that there are
>significant enhancements in library management in Ada9X.  These
>should be an important talking and selling point.

   I will argue non-technically that this is a lousy feature of Ada.
The key is non-technically.  As many have pointed out, one reason C/C++
does so well is that the languages are deficient in some aspects, like
program libraries.  This attracts companies to offer products to meet
these needs, which generates more business activity and advertising,
which gives more recognition to the languages, which makes them easy to
be accepted by management.  Industries are driven by this third party
activity (look at PCs).   Since Ada is so great, it offers very such
opportunities, resulting in little activity to attract the corporate eye.

    In the case of program library, there are too many such needs to be
met by the one solution Ada offers, which discourages people from using
the language in the non-Mandated world.  For C/C++ I am able to choose
from many commercial products with program library capability that best
fits my needs.  Freedom of choice - it's what is supposed to be defending.

    In any event, Ada's success and role in national security relies on
great mastery of the US software industry market forces.  Those pushing for
the Mandate were irresponsible in not planning sufficiently for the
marketing and fostering of Ada outside the Mandated world, if they ever
understood the problem of marketing, which is normally not a soldierly
thing to do.  No one expects the DoD to be a marketing organization -
that's what the free markets are for.  But in pushing for the Mandate, the
DoD implicitly became a marketing organzation.  Until it explicitly
recognizes it, Ada will languish and be niched in the Mandated world,
which in a era of decreasing defense budgets, is a potential threat to
national security.

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178