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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-16 17:12:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1073gv22t969q5a@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:12:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.216.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1082160757 66.81.216.202 (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:12:37 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:12:37 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7235 Date: 2004-04-17T00:12:37+00:00 List-Id: "Georg Bauhaus" wrote in message news:c4tpu9$sqq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de... > Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote: > :>requirement being that the product fufill some (but not necessarily all) of > :>its promises. > : > : > : > : professional traitorousness among CS teachers in American universities. > > What are the requirements in the minds of CS teachers? > - A university job is not enough gratifying per se, so they need > to feel close to the software industry? For the past several years, I have been teaching in a university where Ada was originally a required subject. When I first began teaching at this institution, my classes were well-attended and students were enjoying the opportunity to learn Ada. The requirement for Ada was eliminated a couple of years ago and attendance in the Ada classes plummeted. Many of the other faculty members have expressed a distaste for Ada, some suggesting that the sooner it disappears forever, the better. When I recommend that a student use Ada for a thesis project, unless I am the thesis advisor, the student is told that Ada is not appropriate for serious thesis work. "Use Java or C++, but not Ada." My school is not unique. Throughout academia, Ada is falling victim to a widespead misunderstanding of its value and capabilities. One might think that well-educated faculty members would know better, but that seems not to be the case. As long as industry is not using Ada, it is difficult to persuade academics to promote it. As long as academia fails to include Ada in the curriculum, it is difficult to persuade, it is difficult to persuade industry of its viability. We have something of a stand-off between industy and academia. It does not help that some of our graduate students are bragging about how they are "ripping out all that old Ada code" in this or that system and replacing it with C++. Some of the largest military contractors have decided to abandon Ada even as they commend its value over competing technologies. "We just cannot hire experienced Ada programmers, and the universities don't teach it anymore." In their view it is cheaper and easier to find C++ programmers. While this is a shortsigthed, perhaps even irresponsible management decision, for weapon systems development, the fact that the Pentagon has abandoned all support for Ada gives those contractors good reason to go a different direction. From their view, the DoD is actually opposed to the use of Ada. It is a wrong point-of-view, but it is widespread. We need a statement from someone of influence in the U.S. DoD establishment that affirms the value of Ada. Unfortunately, no one will do this. It is not politically expedient. Furthermore, there may not be anyone left in the Pentagon that actually understands the importance of this issue. As a consequence, we are likely to see, over the next decade, a series of software systems, written in C++ that are expensive to create, difficult to maintain, and highly profitable for military contractors. It is an example, in the case of the U.S. DoD, of "grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory." Ada could have been a powerful force for software superiority. Instead, they are allowing contractors to choose whatever technology is expedient, and, I fear, at the expense of long-term software quality. Richard Riehle