Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@arcor.de> writes:

> On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 01:06 +0100, Markus E Leypold wrote:
>> 
>> Hi George,
>
>> 
>> First you state your dissatisfaction with type inference and the
>> typical functional style of programming in highly subjective terms.
>
> I can only speculate on how you can transform what I have written
> into what you say I have written. I must try harder to choose my words
> carefully. 

The way you say this, it becomes a rather one sided imposition of
interpretation on my part. Actually I only wrote my last response not
to just impolitely drop the discussion w/o further comment, since I
was, am, absolutely dissatisfied with it. I also tried honestly to
understand what went wrong ... but now I fear that just became a new
reproach in your eyes. Well -- we can't be perfect.

Let me state it like this: If you want to continue the discussion I
must have some open "corridor" for arguments left, not just that the
alternatives between shutting up or "typical FP advocate".

> I will provide some simple facts and a frame of reference
> for a reasonable discussion of why and when "explicitly referring" (Ada
> style) is better than "inferred from context" (FP style). It will take
> some time to sort out the arguments in more approachable terms.

> The arguments won't stop me from using FP languages. 

I don't want to stop you. I only had the impression you don't want
them.

> They won't stop me from arguing about the costly effects of syntax
> either.

Well -- it will stop me. I'm not interested in syntax discussions, since
I don't experience detrimental effects. Neither from ML syntax nor
from Ada syntax. I'm adaptable and as Appel consider most if not all
syntax discussion longer than a paragrap a complete waste of time.

> For now: Since Ada was born out of an attempt to provide a
> programming language specifically addressing the needs of production
> in a large organization paying attention to syntax vis-a-vis
> available industry standard programmers has been an important design
> goal. Obviously.

My suggestion (at the beginning of this thread) was that Ada in this
respect reflects the state of the art 20 years ago. Not necessarily
bad, but (a) application areas have changed and (b) the competitors
have changed. So, my suggestion was, perhaps the ecological niche in
which Ada lives has become more narrow: Those who want low level use C
(either misguided or very selectively) and those who want high level
use languages with more possibilities for abstraction, other type
systems and GC.

> I think it still is.

Is born :-)? 

> It is therefore necessary to always refer to how a language is
> apparently used. Not to how you can use a language.

OK. Ada is used in embedded programming. So the OP's question must be
answered with "Ada is not more popular because embedded programming is
not more popular". I regret to say, that this doesn't answer the
question, obviously. The OP's question was about "could have beens".

But I was serious when I said, I'm tired of this discussion, so I
_will_ stop here. I can't afford the time and see (momentarily) no
useful goal served either.

Regards -- Markus