Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?

[gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn)]

In article <4qqc4s$flv@felix.seas.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
Feldman) wrote:

> In article <gwinn-2506961919470001@smc19.ed.ray.com>,
> Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
> >I guess I am not convinced that freeware, although certainly useful, is
> >anything I would normally choose to bet my project on.  Gnu C seems to be
> >the sole exception.  And, development of industrial-strength tool suites
> >requires industrial-strength cashflow.
> >
> Why would you bet your project on GNU C and not on, say, GNU Ada 95?
> Do you have any specific reason for accepting one and rejecting the
> other? Or is this just the usual speculation?
> 
> Mike Feldman

Mainly, because Gnu C has been around a long time and been used by lots of
people, so the problems are mostly solved. Why won't this apply to Gnu
Ada95 et al?  It probably will, eventually.  But not soon enough to matter
for my current projects.  Perhaps in a few years, when the next design-in
window rolls around.

Gnu Ada95 is *very* young, both in years and in miles traveled, and I can
see no reason to be a pioneer here.  Pioneers collect arrows, die famous
but penniless.  For me, it's all risk and no benefit.  My military
customers feel the same way.  And, I must say that their ardor for Ada
seems to be cooling, even as their ardor for COTS grows.

It took Ada83 tool suites something like six years to become sufficiently
mature for us to use it on major projects.  Let's assume that because
Ada95 isn't starting from scratch, it will take only three years.  So,
1995+3= 1998, which is approximately when that next design-in window will
arrive.

Note that the C/C++ world is from ten to one hundred times larger than the
Ada world, and had a 10-year head start.  It's not obvious that Ada,
however perfect it may be, will ever catch up, because the C/C++
"industrial-strength cashflow" is larger than the Ada cashflow by a like
ratio.  The rich always get richer.  It's a matter of market size and
economics, not technology.

Joe Gwinn