Re: Ada advocacy

[anon@att.net]

First, there is no "Microsoft Ada" or "Microsoft Visual Ada" for.net product. 
Second, besides IBM z/OS Rational Apex Ada and Adacore GNAT there are no 
other 2005 compilers. There are a few Ada 95 compiler but most software 
companies like DEC, SGI, Sun have discontinued their Ada compilers. SGI 
even suggest Adacore's GNAT.

So, Microsoft does not support Ada platform directly. And Microsoft does not 
support any GNU language. Its GNU community that supports some Microsoft 
platforms.

A reasons why people do not support Ada.

Microsoft has been using multi-threads since Windows 1.0 (DOS GUI addon)
which was shipped in early 1985 and with OS/2 1.0 a hardware based 
intrinsic multitasking OS in 1987. So, when Microsoft went into the 
schools, people learned that Windows was a multi-threading operating 
system. And now every Microsoft language and OS platforms support parallel.

But, Ada has always been "Concurrent" aka DOS or batch like programming. 
Aka no multi-threads or parallel design.  Even in Ada 2012 (not adopted 
yet), the parallel is not fully there only some simple multiple CPU 
design structures. 

Now, today, no software customer want to use a language unless that language 
fully support multi-threading and parallel designs. So, until the ARG fully 
embraces a true multi-threads parallel design, Ada will stay a limited usage
language.



In <2012032020582259520-rblove@airmailnet>, Robert Love <rblove@airmail.net> writes:
>On 2012-03-20 12:54:38 +0000, tonyg said:
>
>> I am currently fending off an attempt to have my project converted from 
>> ADA to some un named monstrosity of a language. Reasons listed are ADA 
>> is archaic, programmers can not be found, it takes too long to develop 
>> blah blah list goes on. Anyone got any glossy monosyllabillic advocacy 
>> documents hopefully in an entertaining cartoon format?
>
>Good luck.  I'm currently watching NASA throw away many 100K sloc of 
>Ada that's worked for 10 years to replace it with C++.  It's being done 
>in the name of preparing for the future but really, I think it's a jobs 
>program, sad to say.  The C++ guys sometimes sneer at Ada but we find 
>it funny that they  haven't fully comprehended the scope of the problem 
> yet.  I'm sure they'll get there eventually but as tax payers (if 
>you're US) it's very frustrating.
>