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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-29 09:45:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (conclusions) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:31:40 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1075397447 198.96.223.163 (Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:30:47 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:30:47 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5049 Date: 2004-01-29T12:31:40-05:00 List-Id: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > Warren W. Gay wrote: >>>>So the trick will be to turn CM into a programming problem, so >>>>programmers and mathematicians will be instrested in solving it. >>> >>>No, I think the right approach is to keep improving Ada for software >>>engineers and let programmers use C++. >> >>OUCH. I can't believe you said that. > > But what you expected? It is exactly you who provoked that. You was given > many good explanations, but you continued to insist infinitely on your > viewpoint, without taking a break for consideration of arguments of your > opponent to good depth. It seems to me that what this all boils down to is a deeply entrenched attitude that "we don't do it 'that way', and never will". And if it is truly that way, then fine. But let's at least be honest about it. Looking at the larger question of why "Ada is Unpopular?" then, I would have to conclude from this thread (and the original) that this attitude is ONE reason that Ada has not achieved popular support. That is a shame, IMO, because there has been much effort expended into bringing software into a newer level of quality and reliability. Much could be learned from the lessons of Ada. But IMHO, there needs to be an increased look at the practical issues (I don't see += as one of them). But Ada must survive in a predominantly C/C++ world. If Ada doesn't put the engineer/programmer on a nearly equal footing with C/C++ programmers, the battle for marketshare is lost. The issues I presented, were primarily focused on bindings to this world. An area where Ada is very weak. Perhaps a secondary conclusion from this entire discussion can be that perhaps Ada is not really targeted for "General Purpose" computing after all, and never will be. Again, if that be the case, fine, but let's not try to pretend otherwise. When networks were being designed there was the holy ISO model. This was the "engineered" solution. Today however, we all use the TCP/IP model, which was designed from the ground up. Developed in part by practical experience. I think there is a lesson there, that Ada can learn from. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://ve3wwg.tk