Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? Re: Ada 200X

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

<<re: Ada 200X - I suggest: 1) Recognize that it is a multilingual world,
accomodate other popular languages. The program I am on is a C++ project
but actually there are 13 programming languages to be used. 2) Recognize
that it is a multi-architecture world, accomodate interpretive systems and
systems which don't admit programs which have runtime systems.
>>

I find this puzzling. Ada 95 is the ONLY language to systematically
accomodate other languages, and it goes very far in this respect. If you
have specific suggestions for improvements in this area, fine, but to
somehow suggest that Ada 95 dos NOT accomodate other popular languages
seems bizarre.

Ada is perfectly interoperable with interpretive systems. Usually these
days, that is a code word for Java. The fact that two separate vendors
of Ada compilers are providing Ada compilers that generate JBC should
be an indication that this is not a problem.

As for "don't admit programs which have runtime systems". There is nothing
about Ada that requires that every Ada program needs a runtime system. Indeed,
GNAT provides a capability, which we call GNORT (GNAT with No RUntime) that
does what it says. Allows the compilation of programs with absolutely no
runtime. Obviously this means that there are restrictions in the subset
that can be used, but it is a pretty big subset (much bigger than SPARKI
for example), and in the Java Byte Code context, GNAT will accomdoate
the Ravenscar tasking model, again with zero runtime.

So I really don't see what the quote above is asking for, and I certainly
don't see any substantial issues to be addressed in Ada 200X here. Again,
if there are specific suggests rather than what appear to be ill-informed
generalizations, then that would be very helpful!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies