Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth

Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth

[Gregory Aharonian]

   For some time, I have been arguing that IBM's refusal to promote Ada in
the commercial MIS world is effectively killing a chance that Ada will be
broadly accepted, and the partial hypocrisy that results with IBM's being
a part of the STARS program  (i.e. kick them out and make them return the
money).

   A recent article in an IBM specific magazine backs up my contention.
The magazine (and there are magazines outside the non-Mandated world) is
titled "Enterprise Systems Journal", a magazine for IBM and compatible
mainframe, minis and workstations.  Typical articles discuss abends, DB,
MVS, RS/6000, etc.

   In the February 1993 issue, page 45, there is an article titled
"Why IS Rejects Object-Oriented Programming", and discusses the slow
acceptance of OOP by IS managers.  Where IS does adopt OOP, it tends to be
either C++ or Smalltalk.  And once again, Ada is no where mentioned.

   Anyways, at one point, the author, an industry analyst, writes:

	"Many new OOP development environments are evolving to"
	address more traditional IS concerns.  Smalltalk, for
	example, is moving rapidly toward better integration
	with IS software since IBM adopted the language for
	AD/CYCLE and established communications with the small
	software firms behind its development.

----

     Corporate IBM has never said squat about Ada anywhere, has never
included Ada in any of its news software engineering methodologies, and
has little to do with small software firms behind Ada.

     Ada will forever be dead in the non-mandated world as long as IBM is
silent about Ada.  Dead, dead, dead, no matter how many people pretend that
Ada has some rosy future.  And while I wholeheartedly support IBM's right
to whatever it feels is profitable (like ignoring Ada for Smalltalk and C++),
they have no right to receive STARS funding for telling a story completely
contradictory to their commercial activities.  There are enough companies
willing to tell both their defense and non-defense customers the same story
about Ada who belong in STARS.

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

Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth

[cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!firth]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Feb22192350@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:

>     Ada will forever be dead in the non-mandated world as long as IBM is
>silent about Ada.  Dead, dead, dead, no matter how many people pretend that
>Ada has some rosy future.

I rather doubt it.  Back when IBM was a five hundred pound gorilla, it
promoted a language called PL/I.  Turns out there are some things even
a gorilla can't do.

Besides, IBM won't be silent for much longer.  IBM won't be anything for
much longer.

Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth

[Gregory Aharonian]

>>     Ada will forever be dead in the non-mandated world as long as IBM is
>>silent about Ada.  Dead, dead, dead, no matter how many people pretend that
>>Ada has some rosy future.

>I rather doubt it.  Back when IBM was a five hundred pound gorilla, it
>promoted a language called PL/I.  Turns out there are some things even
>a gorilla can't do.

>Besides, IBM won't be silent for much longer.  IBM won't be anything for
>much longer.

IBM is like Cobol and Fortran - it will be around, in some form.  Besides
the replacement for IBM, Microsoft has even less interest in Ada than IBM
(if there is something less than nothing).  The IS world, which makes up
the bulk of the non-mandated world, as it shifts over to the desktop,
distributed computing era, will see its new standard bearer, Microsoft,
showing no interest in Ada.  There will never be enough critical mass for
Ada in the non-mandated world to meet the implicit (and never stated)
assumptions behind current DoD software cost projections (such as tools and
programmer supply).

Doesn't anyone ever wonder (certainly not in the STARS program) why the
current software standard bearers in the non-mandated world ignore Ada
(a few of whom receive STARS funding - has anyone at any of the STARS
shindigs ever pestered the IBM representatives on why IBM ignores Ada?),
while none of the future standard bearers (such as Microsoft, Borland,
Computer Associates, Novell, or Lotus) ignore Ada and aren't involved
with DoD software engineering research activities?  Seems a strange way
to keep compatible with the world.

    There is currently a major price war between Microsoft and Borland
over the latest versions of their C++ compiler environments - development
systems for $150 with compilers, debuggers, browsers, code generators, 
GUI libraries, while Ada systems go for five times as much and more, while
offering less.

    People may smirk that C++ is borrowing a lot from Ada and is nothing
more than a copycat.  Well, how about Ada borrowing C++'s marketing
successes.

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

Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth

[news]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Feb24103445@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregor
y Aharonian) writes:
 
> while none of the future standard bearers (such as Microsoft, Borland,
> Computer Associates, Novell, or Lotus) ignore Ada and aren't involved
> with DoD software engineering research activities?  Seems a strange way
> to keep compatible with the world.

Microsoft and Borland ARE compatible with the world.  It's DOD (actually the
small/unfortunate sections of DOD which do not manage to find waivers) which
are incompatible.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth

[news]

In article <C2z4BB.FJ0@shellgate.shell.com>, rgh@camo (Richard G. Hash) writes:
> In article <SRCTRAN.93Feb22192350@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
> >     Ada will forever be dead in the non-mandated world as long as IBM is
> >silent about Ada.  Dead, dead, dead, ....[blah blah blah]
> >
> >Greg Aharonian
> >Source Translation & Optimiztion
> >P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
> 
> Yeh, I've been hearing this from you for quite some time... But the
> company *I* work for sure is getting alot of mileage out of that "dead,
> dead, dead" language. What's more amazing, we've been using that "dead,
> dead, dead" language for 8 years. Gosh, and I haven't even heard anyone
> speaking Latin in the hallways... What are we doing wrong Greg?

If you're working on military contracts, as I suspect you are, then you're
putting the lives of US servicemen in jeopardy in pursuit of the almighty
dollar.  Patriotic people will refrain from doing that no matter how great
the temptation or the delusions under which whoever is promulgating Ada
are laboring under.  I have personally turned down numerous job offers which 
involved Ada for just that reason.  Most would have meant large salary 
increases.

You wanted to know what you're doing wrong...  now you know.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Re: Why IBM is a detriment to non-Mandate Ada growth

[Scott McCoy]

In article <311@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> 
|> If you're working on military contracts, as I suspect you are, then
|> you're
|> putting the lives of US servicemen in jeopardy in pursuit of the
|> almighty
|> dollar.  

Is this because all mil contractors are evil, or because deployed
Ada systems have been shown to fail at a higher rate than systems
written in other languages?  Where's the evidence?

|> Patriotic people will refrain from doing that no matter how great
|> the temptation or the delusions under which whoever is promulgating Ada
|> are laboring under.  

*laughter*

|> I have personally turned down numerous job offers which 
|> involved Ada for just that reason.  Most would have meant large salary 
|> increases.
|> 
|> You wanted to know what you're doing wrong...  now you know.
|>

Thanx, Ted, for setting us straight.

I really needed the humor this morning.

If you want to continue this, Ted, let's take it to e-mail.

-- 
Scott McCoy	Harris ISD	Opinions expressed are my own.
Staff Eng - SW	Internet: 	smccoy@dw3g.ess.harris.com