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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-07 05:13:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? New language competition? (long) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:11:36 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <3E148004.5000408@cogeco.ca> <3E15CF31.1020900@cogeco.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.a0.0a X-Server-Date: 7 Jan 2003 13:11:48 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32670 Date: 2003-01-07T13:11:48+00:00 List-Id: Wes Groleau wrote in message news:PDhS9.214$Z74.885@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com... > > > sway someone away from what they already use. Also, I've never liked Ada > > bindings to C libraries because while it is technically possible, itr always > > feels like an unnatural act and demands that the Ada developer think like a > > C programmer. It would be better if Ada could go down its own path and do > > Like we did with POSIX--declared _one_ exception, and after it's > raised you examine a global variable to find out what actually > happened. > That may be one technique for hiding the C-ishness of some underlying binding, but that is by no means covering *all* of the C-ishness one encounters in bindings. If an effort was being made to generate bindings to all of the usual things, I'd prefer that they be thought out and made thick enough to be Ada-ish. But then, bindings won't save Ada - its just a necessary condition and one that Ada would forever be playing "catch up" to. If Ada had its own OS, its own GUI, its own database, etc. - or possibly some operating environment that simulated these things and hid the underlying implementation (portability?) - it would be a better way to go. > I see your point about "leapfrogging the competition" _but_ > anything new has to actually be not only new but self-contained. > Maybe yes and maybe no. What I'm suggesting is that we possibly come up with a whole bunch of brainstormed ideas about what could be done with Ada that made something *new* - or at least repackaged an old idea in a way that made it generally useful in a new way. Example: Java stole the idea of pseudo-code and came up with the "virtual machine" targeted towards the Internet. That made it possible to build apps that were executed by web browsers to do some useful things that weren't possible with web pages alone. People jumped on it because it filled a need. What if Ada did something similar? Suppose Ada were to go down a path where the objective was to provide a whole standard GUI environment that was portable across platforms? Here's something Java can't do very well because its interpreted: Execute high-res graphic animations. What if a model was dreampt up that allowed you to download apps from the internet and they were auto-recompiled for your machine on the fly and they executed in some high-res graphics environment? (You're already half way there with Gnat) It might be a natural for the computer game business - perhaps reinventing their whole business model in the process. (Download games free and run them uninterrupted for 10 minutes, then get a 2 minute commercial break - just like TV?) This idea or some other one of a similar bent would be a good direction for Ada - provide something *new* that makes Ada the attractive choice for doing some particular domain of apps. > If you make a new web server, it still has to interoperate with > most of the things other webservers work with, or it won't get > used. And it isn't being used, is it? Sure, by Ada fans, but > that's not the point. > Yes, if you pick a domain you want to address and that domain already has certain standards for data or content or interfaces, you've got to play in that ballgame. But that still doesn't mean you will find acceptance if you're just another programming language that isn't the definer of the domain. To take over that domain, you'll need something *better* in some significant way that makes people willing to put up with your fundamental incompatibility in order to get the *extra* that you provide. > How about TopGraph'X - is it a better X-server? > How many of them have been installed compared to > the number of X-servers in (the) other language(s)? > I don't know. I'm not familiar with the product. But if all it is is another X-server, it isn't really providing anything *different* and it will force the users into incompatibility with all the "real" X-servers written in C, right? Why do I want that headache - unless perhaps someone is forcing me to use Ada by mandate and I still want to use an X-server? > If they're better and they do interoperate, > why are they not being used? Anonymity? > No mandate? Costs too much? A "me too!" product with no compelling reason to use it versus the "industry standard" product? You'll have to tell me. I suspect that one of the reasons Ada has not been gaining widespread acceptance is that too many of the people involved with Ada think like engineers rather than think like businessmen. Perhaps if we shift our focus a little and think like businessmen, we might persuade some businessmen to adopt Ada and increase their profits. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ======================================================================