Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Smith A. Cat]

Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> 
> I would like to see a list of (real and imaginary) Reasons NOT To Choose
> Ada (RNTCA) (and choose either C, C++, Java (!), Pascal, Delphi,
> Powerbuilder etc...) in a particular project. I am also, even more so,
> interested in the refutation of those reasons, but lets start with the
> RNTCA('s) first. I need this as intellectual ammunition because I want to
> get my company to more often choose Ada, particularly instead of C, C++
> and Java. By the way, how much of a thread is Java for Ada?


at my company, i have found the most compelling argument for using this
over that is to write a really hot app in the new language and tell
people who like the app that it was written in whatever.

beyond that, there is NO argument recommending one language over
another, when they both are capable of doing the job.  back when we ran
286's we programmed most things in MS BASIC PDS7 because development was
really quick and the video and serial IO routines were good enough. 
when we got 486's and pentiums that language couldn't hack it, most of
the serial IO routines went buggy!  so now we use C.

there is a great deal of attraction to use the "newest", "hottest",
whatever; but what do you want it to do?  if you just want to handicap
the rest of the programmers in your group maybe you should just quit and
save your company some grief.  if you are sincerely trying to optimize
the programming environment at work, then your questions seem off base. 
they imply that there are no existing projects! is that the case?  if it
is then you better start with something well understood by SOMEBODY
there, or you are going to get up and crawl when you need to run.
smith

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Steve Jones - JON]

Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> 
> I can think of some reasons, can you refute them?
> 1. Difficult to get Ada experts.
Umm not really, there are around 100 on this site and probably 1000 on
my last project alone.

> 2. Learning the language takes long (= expensive).
I'd say learning C takes longer as explaining pointers, memory
deallocation etc to new programmers takes ages (and they still get it
wrong).

> 3. The particular system interfaces with C/C++ API's.
This is a problem, bindings do help but they always come along after you
need them, as a result you have to write your own all the time.

> 4. Ada is not right for GUI programming.
This just isn't right, the project I'm on at the moment has zero lines
of C code in it, uses Ada bindings for PEX and X and gets along just as
well as the last project where we used C for the GUI.  The only problem
is that the bindings aren't as powerful as they could be.  You just have
to be smarter.

5. Ada doesn't have Microsoft support

6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada.  Most Ada compilers are still
rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same way a C
compiler does.

7. Ada isn't "cool" the DoD are big men in suits. Sun are "cool" and so
are K&R.



> ....
> ....
> Please add to this list and if possible add refutations.
> 
> I imagine that an operation like this could have been done before, I'm
> interested in references.
> 
> Regards, Michiel
>

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Robert Dewar]

Steve Jones said

"This is a problem, bindings do help but they always come along after you
need them, as a result you have to write your own all the time."

A huge exaggeration of course, lots of people find the bindings they
need before they need them, that is especially true these days!

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Scott McCoy]

In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>, Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> writes:
|> 
|> 6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada.  Most Ada compilers are
|> still rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same
|> way a C compiler does.
|>

There is (or was) a VisualAda product.  Was pretty good, too.  I'm
afraid I haven't kept up with it or the company that made it, but I
was very happy with the tool when I did.  I especially liked building
rapid prototypes with it, because I found I didn't have to throw away
as much of the prototype app as I did with other languages.

-- 
Scott McCoy
Harris Information Systems Division

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Corey Minyard]

bjw@mirage.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER) writes:

> 
> In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>,
> Steve Jones - JON  <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
> >Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> >> 
> >> I can think of some reasons, can you refute them?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> 4. Ada is not right for GUI programming.
> >This just isn't right, the project I'm on at the moment has zero lines
> >of C code in it, uses Ada bindings for PEX and X and gets along just as
> >well as the last project where we used C for the GUI.  The only problem
> >is that the bindings aren't as powerful as they could be.  You just have
> >to be smarter.
> 
> Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
> development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
> any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
> OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
> time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine. But the smart players use
> tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
> pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
> for their overall system design.
> 

Well, XForms supports Ada directly (generates Ada code through a
converter).  It seems to work fine, and XForms is a lot better than
any other GUI framework I have used.  And it is free.

-- 
Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@metronet.com
  Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com
-- 
Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@metronet.com
  Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Brendan WALKER]

In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>,
Steve Jones - JON  <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
>Michiel Perdeck wrote:
>> 
>> I can think of some reasons, can you refute them?

[snip]

>> 4. Ada is not right for GUI programming.
>This just isn't right, the project I'm on at the moment has zero lines
>of C code in it, uses Ada bindings for PEX and X and gets along just as
>well as the last project where we used C for the GUI.  The only problem
>is that the bindings aren't as powerful as they could be.  You just have
>to be smarter.

Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine. But the smart players use
tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
for their overall system design.

Regards,


-- 
Brendan Walker	        | The opinions expressed above are obviously
IASSF Project, 	        | the ramblings of a troubled mind, and 
GMS S3I (Australia)     | therefore not those of my employer.

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada (NOT!)

[Dirk Dickmanns]

bjw@mirage.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER) writes:

>Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
>development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
>any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
>OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
>time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine.

Well, there is at least one system that proves you wrong.

XForms with fdesign
- comes with the possibility to generate Ada code,
- is free for non-commercial use,
- is, as far as I used it, very stable,
- allows access to Xlib for your own graphics,
- and it is not such a BLOATED PIG you get elsewhere.
http://ocsystems.com/xada/xforms1.html

>But the smart players use
>tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
>pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
>for their overall system design.

Aaah, nice being called a smart player.  But...
Some are even smarter and resist the push ;-)

Dirk

--
Dirk Dickmanns -- REALIS -- real-time dynamic computer vision
Sun OS 4.1.3; PC Linux; Ada, OCCAM, C, Eiffel, PROLOG, C++

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Vincent Celier]

Boaz Chow wrote:
> 
> 5.1.  Can't feed my family with Ada.
> 
> look at the newspaper,  they all want Visual Basic programmers for writting
> windows95 program.  My friend gradurated from an university.  He had to go
> buy a book called "TEACH YOURSELVES VISUAL BASIC IN 21 DAYS" for the job he
> was offered right after he was out of school.  (He was using NeXT Step from
> his school)
> 

What do you want to prove with this uncomplete story ? That to get a job
that requires
Visual Basic, you don't need to know it ? Or that to learn Visual Basic,
you
need only 3 weeks ?  I said "uncomplete" story, because you don't say
that your friend
got the job.

And in any case, some anecdotal information and statistics based on
newspaper adds
does not prove anything. It acn only prove that it is not cost-effective
to advertize
for Ada developpers in these mewspapers.

-- Vincent Celier,
-- 9100 McCutcheon Place, RICHMOND, B.C.
-- CANADA, V7A 5A5
-- +1 (604) 241-9811

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Geert Bosch]

Boaz Chow (boaz@pipeline.com) wrote:
   5.1.  Can't feed my family with Ada.

   look at the newspaper,  they all want Visual Basic programmers for
   writting windows95 program.  My friend gradurated from an
   university.  He had to go buy a book called "TEACH YOURSELVES VISUAL
   BASIC IN 21 DAYS" for the job he was offered right after he was out
   of school.  (He was using NeXT Step from his school)

Your friend should be able to find a better job than that,
or he shouldn't have gone to University. 

Most companies produce lousy software that doesn't even come close
to work as it should.  Most projects are way behind on schedule, cost
much more than calculated and only deliver a partially finished product.

Some companies spend much time on planning, requirements analysis,
specification and *systematically* implementing a system, leading to a
high quality product that is delivered on time for the calculated
costs. 

The difference is called Software Engeneering and is something that
is taught at good universities. You'll learn that some tools help
software engineers by doing their jobs and some only get in the way,
although "programmers" might like the tool.

When your friend has a good software engineering background, it is very
easy for him to find a job at one of the companies in the second group.
Then it is more likely for him to be involved in a project using
Ada as implementation language than in a project using Visual Basic.

-- 
E-Mail: geert@sun3.iaf.nl    

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Craig Spannring]

Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:

>Michiel Perdeck wrote:
>> 

>> 2. Learning the language takes long (= expensive).
>I'd say learning C takes longer as explaining pointers, memory
>deallocation etc to new programmers takes ages (and they still get it
>wrong).

Learning pointers, arrays, and in/out parameters in C is difficult and
you can't write anything more than 'hello world' without understanding
these concepts.  Ada has some difficult concepts, but you only need
the simple concepts for most programs.  Overall I would guess someone
with no experience could be productive sooner in Ada than in C.  Are
there any studies on the learning curves of C++ vs Ada?  

Now of course most of the programmers out there looking for work
already know C or C++.

>6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada.  Most Ada compilers are still
>rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same way a C
>compiler does.

You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson.  They have some
sort of visual layout program in their professional edition.  I
haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
steep for a toy to use at home.

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Dana Miller]

In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
Spannring) wrote:

> Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
> 
> >Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> >> 
> 
> >> 2. Learning the language takes long (= expensive).
> >I'd say learning C takes longer as explaining pointers, memory
> >deallocation etc to new programmers takes ages (and they still get it
> >wrong).
> 
> Learning pointers, arrays, and in/out parameters in C is difficult and
> you can't write anything more than 'hello world' without understanding
> these concepts.  Ada has some difficult concepts, but you only need
> the simple concepts for most programs.  Overall I would guess someone
> with no experience could be productive sooner in Ada than in C.  Are
> there any studies on the learning curves of C++ vs Ada?  
> 
> Now of course most of the programmers out there looking for work
> already know C or C++.
> 
> >6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada.  Most Ada compilers are still
> >rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same way a C
> >compiler does.
> 
> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson.  They have some
> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition.  I
> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> steep for a toy to use at home.

MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400 

The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
four figures than two.   Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
all across the board.  WOW they are EXPENSIVE!!  The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
what Ada does out of the box.  Not a bad deal.  The other advantage of the
Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
compilers from MS or Borland.

-- 
"I'm always baffled by the number of software people who think fast code is better than correct code!"  Me.  

dmiller@iquest.net
Senior Software Engineer and jack of all trades.  

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> Spannring) wrote:

>> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson.  They have some
>> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition.  I
>> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
>> steep for a toy to use at home.
> 
> MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400 

Unless it is very well hidden, Codewarrior does not include a visual
layout program.  AppMaker from Bowers does an excellent job and will
interoperate with CodeWarrior (Pascal or C*), but the total price is
then up to the $600 level.  I don't consider that horrible, but it
is not particularly lower than ObjectAda for Windows on Intel.

> The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
> four figures than two.   Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
> all across the board.  WOW they are EXPENSIVE!!  The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
> Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
> bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
> what Ada does out of the box.  Not a bad deal.  The other advantage of the
> Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
> change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
> compilers from MS or Borland.

Yes, rather than torture programmers with frequent language changes
the Ada community prefers to torture purchasing agents with frequent
company and product name changes.  ObjectAda is now from a company
called Aonix.  Formerly Thomson.  Former Alsys.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> > Spannring) wrote:
> 
> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson.  They have some
> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition.  I
> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
> > 
> > MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400 
> 
> Unless it is very well hidden, Codewarrior does not include a visual
> layout program.  AppMaker from Bowers does an excellent job and will
> interoperate with CodeWarrior (Pascal or C*), but the total price is
> then up to the $600 level.  I don't consider that horrible, but it
> is not particularly lower than ObjectAda for Windows on Intel.

Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
ClearCase CMS for crying out loud).  The _personal_ version (which
doesn't look too toy like either) is $245.  As pointed out below, to
get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
what you get for the $600.00.


> > The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
> > four figures than two.   Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
> > all across the board.  WOW they are EXPENSIVE!!  The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
> > Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
> > bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
> > what Ada does out of the box.  Not a bad deal.  The other advantage of the
> > Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
> > change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
> > compilers from MS or Borland.
> 
> Yes, rather than torture programmers with frequent language changes
> the Ada community prefers to torture purchasing agents with frequent
> company and product name changes.  ObjectAda is now from a company
> called Aonix.  Formerly Thomson.  Former Alsys.

Yeah, really!  Criminey, I was just getting used to "Thomson"...

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <JSA.96Dec5213408@alexandria>, jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes:
> In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

>> Yes, rather than torture programmers with frequent language changes
>> the Ada community prefers to torture purchasing agents with frequent
>> company and product name changes.  ObjectAda is now from a company
>> called Aonix.  Formerly Thomson.  Former Alsys.
> 
> Yeah, really!  Criminey, I was just getting used to "Thomson"...

I spoke to someone at their booth in Philadelphia yesterday, and
they convinced me of the wisdom of the change.  Although Thomson
was an appealing name to me, there are groups of prospective
customers in other countries for whom it was not an appealing
name.  I am sure those customers will buy more compilers than
I will, and anything which makes their compiler more popular
without undermining technical quality is fine with me.

Larry Kilgallen

P.S. Off topic ?  Well, I guess I am saying that name changes
may be worthy of grousing on c.l.a, but they do _not_ constitute
a reasonable basis for avoiding Ada :-)

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Craig Spannring]

jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:

>In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

>> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
>> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
>> > Spannring) wrote:
>> 
>> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson.  They have some
>> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition.  I
>> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
>> >> steep for a toy to use at home.

>Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
>for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
>ClearCase CMS for crying out loud).  The _personal_ version (which
>doesn't look too toy like either) is $245.  As pointed out below, to
>get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
>looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
>what you get for the $600.00.

Note I said, "I'm being paid to do C++" and "toy to use at home".  I
think that $595 is a very low price, but since my employer has no
interest in Ada I would only be able to use it for my own pet
projects.  Since _I_ could only use it for playing at home, (nobody is
offering to pay me for Ada code), $595 could better be used for
upgrading my mountain bike, getting a new pair of skis, etc.  Now if
someone were to offer to pay me to write Ada code I'd order a copy
before you could even blink.

A toy is something I want that I can't get my employer to buy.

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <58hgs4$s0e@news.structured.net> cts@alpinet.com (Craig Spannring) writes:

> jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
> 
> >In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> 
> >> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> >> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> >> > Spannring) wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson.  They have some
> >> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition.  I
> >> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> >> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
> 
> >Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
> >for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
> >ClearCase CMS for crying out loud).  The _personal_ version (which
> >doesn't look too toy like either) is $245.  As pointed out below, to
> >get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
> >looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
> >what you get for the $600.00.
> 
> Note I said, "I'm being paid to do C++" and "toy to use at home".  I
> think that $595 is a very low price, but since my employer has no
> interest in Ada I would only be able to use it for my own pet
> projects.  Since _I_ could only use it for playing at home, (nobody is
> offering to pay me for Ada code), $595 could better be used for
> upgrading my mountain bike, getting a new pair of skis, etc.  Now if
> someone were to offer to pay me to write Ada code I'd order a copy
> before you could even blink.

Fair enough.  I mean I don't even _have_ a computer at home - can't
stand the things actually, ;^).  But, if it is just to "fool around
with", then the personal edition should be fine.  Of course, it's
probably just as likely that the $245 would be more fun spent on xxx
too.  In fact, given this caveat I'm not convinced even a _free_
version would be "worth it".


> A toy is something I want that I can't get my employer to buy.

First rule in good domain analysis is to get the lexicon straight...:-|


/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Dave Wood]

Jon S Anthony wrote:
> 
> In article <58hgs4$s0e@news.structured.net> cts@alpinet.com (Craig Spannring) writes:
> 
> > jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> >
> > >> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> > >> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> > >> > Spannring) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson.  They have some
> > >> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition.  I
> > >> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> > >> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
> >
> > >Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
> > >for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
> > >ClearCase CMS for crying out loud).  The _personal_ version (which
> > >doesn't look too toy like either) is $245.  As pointed out below, to
> > >get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
> > >looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
> > >what you get for the $600.00.
> >
> > Note I said, "I'm being paid to do C++" and "toy to use at home".  I
> > think that $595 is a very low price, but since my employer has no
> > interest in Ada I would only be able to use it for my own pet
> > projects.  Since _I_ could only use it for playing at home, (nobody is
> > offering to pay me for Ada code), $595 could better be used for
> > upgrading my mountain bike, getting a new pair of skis, etc.  Now if
> > someone were to offer to pay me to write Ada code I'd order a copy
> > before you could even blink.
> 
> Fair enough.  I mean I don't even _have_ a computer at home - can't
> stand the things actually, ;^).  But, if it is just to "fool around
> with", then the personal edition should be fine.  Of course, it's
> probably just as likely that the $245 would be more fun spent on xxx
> too.  In fact, given this caveat I'm not convinced even a _free_
> version would be "worth it".

True enough.  I recently bought a new PC and it came loaded with about
two dozen "free" CDs with games and such.  I won't even spend the time
to install most of it - I hardly see my kids as it is.  The last thing
I'm going to do in my spare time is spend an hour downloading an Ada
compiler at 28.8 just for the joy of compiling.  

"Ada as a toy" is an interesting concept, probably reserved for the 
kind of psycho engineers who work for Ada vendors.

(Just kidding, guys, really!!!  You know I luv ya!!!)

-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com


p.s.  By the way, you get a version of ObjectAda for free if 
you buy Mike Feldman's book at your local bookstore.

Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Ted Dennison]

Dave Wood wrote:
> 
> True enough.  I recently bought a new PC and it came loaded with about
> two dozen "free" CDs with games and such.  I won't even spend the time
> to install most of it - I hardly see my kids as it is.  The last thing
> I'm going to do in my spare time is spend an hour downloading an Ada
> compiler at 28.8 just for the joy of compiling.
> 
...
> (Just kidding, guys, really!!!  You know I luv ya!!!)

There's nothing stopping you from DOING SOMETHING ELSE while that one
hour download is taking place. If you like to sit and watch the progress
bar slowly grow, its no wonder your kids don't like to hang out with
you. :-)

-- 
T.E.D.          
             |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.lmco.com  |
             |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net               |
             |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison          |