Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use

[BrianG <briang000@gmail.com>]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> BrianG schrieb:
>> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>> Keith Thompson schrieb:

(Sorry, I only meant to retain this paragraph:)
>>>> Unfortunately, the C99 standard has not yet been universally adopted.
>>>> Very few compilers fully support it.  
>> And this differs from Ada'05 how?
> 
...
> 
> 
>>  How many compilers support it?
> 
> Fewer than the total number of compilers (Ada 95 or Ada 2005)
> available, TTBOMK.
> 
Is it more than 1?  I don't remember hearing anything about other support.

> 
>>  More
>> importantly (to me), how many non-compiler tools support it?
> 
> Don't know.  Syntax tools have few new things to deal with.
> X-language tools might even be ahead if they had already supported
> multiple inheritance of interfaces.  Other tools for source code
> analysis announce to support Ada 2005.  Some makers depend on customer
> demand and either fade or grow.
> 

And some demand customers pay them to develop the upgrade, which the 
customer will have to pay for the privilege of using.

If you want sustainable software, you can't rely on languages/versions 
that are not widely supported.  It may not have been that many years 
since Ada'05 (what, basically 3 years, in essense?), but Ada'1z is 
already in work.  When it's finished, what will the ration of '05 to 
'95-only tools be?

Sorry, getting off of soapbox now.  Maybe I ought to put wheels on it 
and take a ride downhill.