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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a0be06fbc0dd71f1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <20071229040639.f753f982.coolzone@it.dk> <13nek962cd55t08@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: The future of Ada is at risk X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.99.94 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.net 1199050230 ST000 70.134.99.94 (Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:30:30 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:30:30 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: O@Y[R^[GZRRER_H]]RKB_UDAZZ\DPCPDLXUNNHXIJYWZUYICD^RAQBKZQTZTX\_I[^G_KGFNON[ZOE_AZNVO^\XGGNTCIRPIJH[@RQKBXLRZ@CD^HKANYVW@RLGEZEJN@\_WZJBNZYYKVIOR]T]MNMG_Z[YVWSCH_Q[GPC_A@CARQVXDSDA^M]@DRVUM@RBM Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:30:30 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19087 Date: 2007-12-30T21:30:30+00:00 List-Id: "Phaedrus" wrote in message news:13nek962cd55t08@corp.supernews.com... > Take a look at this: > http://www.st.cs.uni-sb.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced-fp/docs/sweeny.pdf > > The game development guys realize the need for a new language. Doesn't the > language he describes sound a little familiar? Lots of Ada-esque stuff there. > Sure, there's a lot of work to be done before Ada is really practical for game > development, but it's certainly do-able. I think it is not "before Ada is really practical," but before the Ada compilers, libraries, and toolsets are ready. As a language design, Ada is certainly ready. The availability of additional libraries and tools has delayed its acceptance in the larger community. This is a kind of "chicken and egg" thing. As for the lemmings rushing over the cliff carrying C++ banners, their cause is now under assault with the advent of Java, C#, and Ruby. The number of professional programmers who believe C++ is the answer is dwindling, and new options such as "D" are appearing. We are back to the pre-Ada period of a "Tower of Babel" and that is not good news for the profession. The DoD, unable to manage a single-language policy is now mired in a multiple-language policy which will eventually become a huge problem for the weapon systems community -- but a huge opportunity for the contractors who will get billions of dollars for fixing the software they are currently trying to build. As long as software engineering language choice is driven by the latest fad, we can expect the problem to get worse. The people at the contractor organizations such as LM who chose C++ over Ada have made a monumental error and that error will pesist for a very long time. Some other contractors who made the same dumb decision are now hoping Java will save them. It won't. As long as software development is relegated to a programming process instead of an engineering process, those contractors will continue to make bad choices -- and the quality of the products will be just good enough to require more DoD money for follow-on projects for the software equivalent of baling-wire type fixes. I am now persuaded that the abrogation of the Ada mandate in 1998 was a very bad step. It was the equivalent of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Just at the time when Ada had advanced beyond the original conservative model to incorporate a more robust language design, the DoD, reacting to pressure from contractor executives, and using a fallacious economic rationale, abandoned their best language hope for the preservation of a software engineering development tool. I was told recently, by someone in the Ada tool industry, that there are very few new Ada projects being started. Economic survival requires that compiler publishers expand their own software product line -- or plunge into extinction. I know there are some new projects, but some of the most important DoD projects are eschewing Ada. This is, in part, because the DoD toothless officials responsible for software contracting have abdictated their own responsibility for langauge choice and left the decision to the contractor. In the world of accounting, there is a principle of "separation of controls." This principle says that the person handling the money should not also be doing the record-keeping, and control for it. Under the current model, the DoD contractors are making all the decisions, and there is a chance that those decisions are made in the best interest of their own corporate future -- and economic self-interest. This is not to suggest they are dishonest. They are, from my experience, honorable and dedicated patriots who have the best interest of the DoD and U.S. society at heart. However, even the noblest among us is capable of rationalization. On the bright side, I am happy to note that there are a lot of people in the DoD who are concerned about this kind of thing. The awareness of a need for better engineering with regard to software is growing due to the presence of some very bright and well-informed personnel in the DoD. The hope for the future can be that these excellent civil servants will be able to enforce some software engineering discipline on those contractors (not all of whom) are programming-centric rather than software engineering-centric. This could result in better choices of languages, and Ada would certainly be a better choice for many of the current projects than some of those being chosen by the contractors. On bright light has been the contribution of SPARK to the increased use of Ada. As for "free software." That ought not be the issue for safety-critical software systems. The folks at Green Hills, Aonix, DDC-I, and Rational understand this, and they take a lot of pride in the quality of their Ada products. We can be thankful that, after the fall-out from the abrogation of the DoD mandate, we are blessed with a group of companies who do take their responsibilities for developing excellent software. I apologize if I omitted any of the other commecial Ada compiler publishers. We already know about AdaCore, but these other, less well-known, participants deserved acknowledgement from time to time.