Re: status of Ada STL?

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in message news:<aev8n2$bkl$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> To most Ada users, the syntax is not "klunky" and it is the least of their
> concerns.

You just don't get it, do you. The point is not what Ada USERS think,
but rather what POTENTIAL Ada users think.

> Ada may shrivel up and die - but it won't be because of the
> syntax. It may die because programmers don't like the rigid structure -
> prefering to be "free spirits". It may die because programmers don't like
> its type safety or its tasking model or its method of supporting OO
> Programming or a dozen other more "global" and "serious" concerns. But it
> won't die because the syntax for assignment is ":=" instead of "=". I've got
> to believe that most programmers are more "grown up " than that and can get
> over their personal preferences for this style or that style of syntactic
> notation to look at the much more significant issues of how well the
> language does the work that they want to do.
> 
> Try researching the criticisms that have been leveled against Ada in various
> newsgroups, websites, articles, etc. You'll easily find a lot of them. You
> won't find much reference to "klunky" syntax among the criticisms.

First of all, the root cause of a problem is not always obvious to
everyone or even to a few. Why do you suppose people need counseling
and psychotherapy for months or years to discover the underlying cause
of their problems? Perhaps Ada syntax just grates on many people
unconsciously. It's possible. And perhaps it's just a minor impediment
that constantly tips the balance against Ada. One person on this
thread told me that Ada will become more popular if more people write
software with it. Isn't that brilliant reasoning! So the way to make
Ada more popular is to first get more people to use it! Why didn't I
think of that?!

Secondly, I do not appreciate your patronzing tone. No, I am not an
Ada expert. But if you take a look at the title of this thread, you
might recall that it started out with my asking about the status of an
Ada version of the C++ STL. The lack of a STANDARD Ada version of STL
seems to me to be a pretty serious problem with Ada at the current
time. The lack of "+=", "-=", "*=", and "/=" (the correct version of
"/=", that is), which I also brought up in this thread, is also a
significant problem for efficient vector/matrix (and other)
operations.

I work in air traffic management/control. A few years ago the FAA
mandated that decision support systems for controllers be written in
Ada. Now I have to practically beg to get anyone to even consider
using Ada. World-class software experts tell me to use C++ or Java
because Ada programmers are on the endangered species list. Perhaps
the situation is not as serious elsewhere, but if my environment is
representative, Ada could be in trouble. And if Ada stalwarts are
unwilling to even consider an optional cosmetic makeover, I think you
might eventually be sorry. But have it your way.

> "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:bebbba07.0206201447.7d70511d@posting.google.com...
> >
> > So we agree that Ada is a technically superior language -- and it had
> > the mother of all "moneybags" solidly behind it in the form of a
> > mandate. I wonder why it isn't as popular as C, C++, and Java. Could
> > the klunky syntax be a part of the problem?