C++/cmake project, injecting Ada... (was Re: If not Ada, what else...)

["Alex R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.invalid>]

As I was writing this reply, I realized that focusing in a particular case 
at hand may provide better food for though and more precise solutions. So I 
have renamed the thread accordingly. Now, the scenario is like this:

A fairly conventional open source project for doing some high-level 
simulations. C++ based, using cmake for building. Developers using an 
assortment of linux OSses: Ubuntu 10.04, 10.10, Fedora (last 2 or 3 
versions). Eventually, MacOSX could enter the fray. Remember, this is 
loosely cooperative research, nobody mandates the devel platform to a 
particularly tight version.

The project uses several libraries: boost, YARP, opencv, etc, which are 
located by cmake. Somehow all this compiles in such varied environments.

Now, let's suppose the contributions are fairly self-contained (e.g., 
providing a particular class instance for an abstract base class). I know 
how to interface Ada and C/C++, don't mind to write glue code as needed, 
etc.

The challenge: throwing Ada into this mix without disrupting everyone's 
workflow to an unreasonable level. The obstacles that I see, and for which 
your ideas are most welcome:

1) Compiler. Debian/Ubuntu could be easy (Debian in particular): the Ada 
compiler is packaged and uses the system gcc. No idea about Fedora. The 
AdaCore GPL package brings in its own gcc/g++ versions, which have to be 
used to compile the C/C++ parts. Thus, it forces people to throw the stock 
system compiler in favor of the one I need. Not nice in my book. No 
workaround that I can see. Perhaps the .cgpr file offers a way? My early 
conclusion: use stock Ada compilers, doable with Debian, no-go in Mac?

2) Build framework: I read somewhere that gprbuild should be used instead. 
Obviously, I don't like being the newcomer and having to propose that cmake 
has to go in favor of an unknown tool. Also, not sure of how gprbuild would 
deal with C/c++ libraries that can be packaged differently depending on OS 
versions. Alternatively, I confess not having any idea how a few Ada sources 
could be integrated with cmake. Would very much like to know if this is 
doable. I read quite some time ago about difficulties (that were solved 
IIRC) faced by the PlPlot project with their Ada binding; I failed when I 
tried to replicate that, mostly because my very limited knowledge of cmake. 
Anyone here has done it?

3) Ada compiler bugs: given my personal experience, better to stick to 
"conservative" Ada coding. No synchronized interfaces or other fancy 
novelties. A minor sacrifice.

4) ???

Basically, I'd like to blend in some Ada as painlessly as possible, if 
possible at all...

Piotr Trojanek wrote:

> On Apr 20, 12:39 pm, "Alex R. Mosteo" <alejan...@mosteo.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm a big supporter of Ada, but I'm the only person that I know that uses
>> it in my work environment (mobile robotics research). Everyone is using
>> either C, C++, python or java.
>>
>> I ceased looking into other languages because I am so comfortable with
>> Ada. I fear I may have missed some interesting boat.
>>
>> Do you know of other languages worth to look at (i.e. that will make an
>> Ada programmer somewhat happy), that are at least as "popular" as Ada,
>> besides these ones mentioned above?
> 
> Alex, I am in a kind of similar position - in my robotics team all the
> people
> are using C++. I have simply decided not to bother and do my work with
> Ada.

< This was written before the scenario above: >

I do that when it's my own code, that most likely nobody will touch. But it 
feels rude to impose an unknown (for the rest) language on a group of people 
which are not my subordinates (some might say that I would be doing them a 
favor ;-)). It's also a hard decision if you'd like to attract contributors 
in an open source project (which is the case for the one that I'm just 
starting).

I guess a good chance is to keep using Ada in "boundary" things that may 
make people exposed to Ada without having to "fight" it head-on. The 
interested ones can go further.

> 
> There are a lot of programming languages around and people use ALL of
> them
> to program their robots. Please take a look at the list of languages,
> which
> you can use for Lego NXT programming (Ada is also there!):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Mindstorms_NXT#Programming
> 
> The question is what is your focus in a robotics research? If it is a
> RT control,
> than I see no point in not using Ada. If you are interested in AI,
> then Lisp is
> probably the way to go. It has been shown, that virtually any language
> can be
> used for a robotic research. I think you should simply pick a one,
> which allows
> you to focus on what is your primary goal.

I'm actually into planning/task allocation (although I have to use robot 
hardware, but using non-RT libraries like player, ROS or YARP). Also lots of 
networking. So in my case Ada is a better choice than Lisp, I think.

Alex.

> 
> --
> Piotr