Re: status of Ada STL?

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:4519e058.0206180630.b6ef8cd@posting.google.com...
>
> I've been here long enough to have heard just about every theory there
> is. Frankly, I don't think the syntax theories hold any water at all.
> The programming environment theories are a smidge better, but no more.
>
As one of the advocates of better programming environments (libraries, IDEs,
etc.) I'd want to slightly recharacterize the theory as you describe it. My
contention would be that these days, libraries and IDEs are the price of
admission - not a guarantee of success. If you *do* have them, people might
still ignore and dismiss the language for a whole host of other reasons. If
you *don't* have them, you can't come to the table and compete because of
the business case against it - "Ada may be cool and I'd really love to use
it, but I get *sooo* much leverage with this library, IDE, GUI builder, etc.
that I can't afford the cost of going with Ada." (I've known plenty of
people who knew & liked Ada who *did* switch to other languages because of
the leverage.)


> The main reason hordes of people don't switch to Ada is that
> programmers are a very conservative lot. Given a choice, they fight
> hard to use the language they are most familiar with. Programming
> managers are even more so, since they aren't technically involved
> enough to have any judgement point other than past use. People comming
> here saying that Ada use would take off if only it used syntax items
> from their own favorite other language are just further examples of
> this principle.
>
Amen. Once a language gets entrenched in the mind of the programmer or in
the investment of the company, it is going to be *real* hard to change
anything. That's why it is important for the Ada-philes to develop software
or products that use Ada. The more of it that is out there, the more Ada
becomes "entrenched".


> If we look at past successes, what builds language bases isn't
> wonderful syntax, but rather heavy marketing campaigns (with hopefully
> a germ of truth under all the BS). If we want usage to skyrocket, then
> we need to somehow foster the (generally self-fufilling) impression
> that Ada is a "hot" language. Its a bit tough to do that with no big
> moneybags company like Sun or Microsoft behind us. When someone comes
> in here and starts an "Ada's syntax is all wrong" thread, if anything
> its counterproductive.
>
Marketing got people to open their wallets and give up their hard-earned
cash in exchange for a rock in a cardboard box. They did it in great
numbers, too. A strong marketing campaign would do a lot for Ada - but who
would fund it?

That isn't the only reason languages flourish, but it is one of the reasons
it happens in recent years. (I don't recall ATT investing heavily in a "Use
C" campaign - but they did give away an OS that was written in C and had a
compiler come along for the ride.)

But when you get down to it, programmers, managers and institutions do *not*
conduct surveys of the syntax of various languages and decide "I'll stop
using what I already am using to start using this new language because it
has this wonderful, spiffy, scientifically demonstrated to be superior
syntax!!!" They *might* do it if the language (no matter how butt-ugly you
make the syntax) offers them some significant leverage in getting their job
done or offers some significant capabilities they can exploit in producing
better (more marketable) products.

What would convince a number of programmers to learn and use a new language
is if they are being offered a *job* that utilized it. For that to happen,
you need companies to exist that are building their products with Ada
inside. Its not likely that companies with existing products that have "C++
Inside" or "Java Inside" are going to change their products, so the jobs
will have to come from new startups - either internal to our existing
companies or external as entrepreneurial endeavors.

> Don't let this stop you from implementing your Pythada preprocessor
> though. Just don't expect it to be used by anyone but big Python fans
> new to Ada, very few of which are hanging out in this newsgroup to be
> recruited. Perhaps you would have more luck getting support from a
> Python newsgroup.

Its always possible to build a front-end and hook it up to Gnat. If that's
the silver bullet to get Ada adopted by "The Masses", its not that difficult
or expensive to prove that theory out. But I just don't see tinkering with
the syntax as an "Official" change to the language when there is no evidence
that anything is "broke" with it. It would be just way too disruptive (even
if the old syntax still worked) to the whole industry and for what gain?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com