RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

[Beard, Frank Randolph CIV]

-----Original Message-----
From: soft-eng [mailto:softeng3456@netscape.net]

> That's exactly the problem -- because there were so
> many itsy-bitsy features in Ada, a novice needed to
> learn all of them, because somebody somewhere finds
> it useful and it will be found in real-world code.

Nothing says you have to learn every feature of Ada to
use it.  I think you will inevitably miss out on 
something if you don't, but that's a different point.
I'm sure you could write many programs with just 
integers and strings if you wanted to, but odds are
you could find a much more elegant and efficient way
by knowing more features of the language.

> Having tons of features in auxiliary libraries
> in the "C" style make mastering the language much simpler
> by chunking the task of learning without complicating
> the syntax issues.

I disagree.  I see very little difference here.  All you've
done is defer the problem.  If we are talking about a
maintenance issue here, at least if it's defined in the
language, I can go look it up in the reference manual if
I come across something in code I have to maintain.  I'd
rather be able to look it up in a reference manual than
try to figure out how to use something I may not have the 
documentation to.

You also have the problem of libraries that don't exist
on certain platforms.

> But having them directly in the language itself makes
> just learning the basic language unnecessarily harder.
> And the trouble is, you don't get anything really
> worthwhile out of all the time you spend on
> mastering all that syntax.  You would have
> been better off mastering concepts instead.

You are saying it's better to "master" a core that
doesn't do much, and then pick out libraries (if you
know about them) that help you do more.

What's the difference in that and picking out a 
subset of the language to "master", and then picking
out more features that help you do more.  I'd rather
have that in a language that is standardized with
features that are guaranteed to be there.

Just my 0.02.

Frank

RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

[Beard, Frank Randolph CIV]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Welsh [mailto:news@tom-welsh.co.uk]

> How about successful projects? Well, for a start these are in a small
> minority - partly because of the syndrome described above. Moreover,
> some of the most strikingly successful projects are considered strategic
> (whether in government or business) and are therefore kept secret. Once
> again, the feedback loops are blocked and learning does not take place
> on any significant scale.

I worked on the Space Shuttle ground based test chambers.  The development
was totally in Ada.  The final product was about 200K lines of code.  NASA
was very satisfied with the software.  We were even given an award by NASA.
However, our NASA management told us not to tell anyway about the software,
because, as a government agency, we would have to give a copy of the source
code to anyone who asked.  Among other things, they were afraid we would
have to provide support to the outside world, even if it were only occasional
telephone, or email, support.

I never say anything anywhere that talked about it's success.

Frank

RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

[Beard, Frank Randolph CIV]

-----Original Message-----
From: soft-eng [mailto:softeng3456@netscape.net]
>> 
>> Observation suggests that good software products do not necessarily
>> become popular; and the methods and processes adopted in successful
>> software projects do not necessarily get widely imitated. 

> Where do you get this?  People in the industry adopt what
> they see succeeding.

Just because it's succeeding doesn't mean it's a quality product.
I could write for weeks about exceptions to this.  The are so many
things that succeed because they are cheap, not quality.  People 
just seem to accept the fact they shouldn't expect too much out of it.
They're willing to take a gamble, and put up with some inconvenience
or inferiority, just to save some money.  I'm guilty of it.

I get tired of people making the cheap choice and then suing because
it failed, when no one should have been surprised.

M$ Windows 3.0 was buggy and crashed often, yet it succeeded.  Why,
because it was cheaper than Apple/Macintosh, which was/is a superior
product.  I use to use Mac's at work, and I loved them, but I wasn't
willing to spend double the price of a Windows PC to have one at home.
Although Windows continues to improve (95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, and now XP),
it's still far from quality.  Our NT and 2000 systems have to be rebooted
fairly frequently.  I will say XP is about as close to a Mac as Windows
has ever been.  I use XP but I haven't done any development on it so far,
so I'm not familiar with those problems yet.

But my point is, MS Windows was/is much more successful than Apple
Macintosh, despite the fact it's an inferior product.

Frank

RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

[Beard, Frank Randolph CIV]

-----Original Message-----
From: soft-eng [mailto:softeng3456@netscape.net]

> (Thanks for illuminating the Ada advocates' mentality
> perfectly, btw!)

Thanks for misunderstanding what he was saying and
demonstrating the C/C++ mentality perfectly.

RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

[Beard, Frank Randolph CIV]

-----Original Message-----
From: soft-eng [mailto:softeng3456@netscape.net]

> Works for me (plus several million other people.)

> I even used Unix for years, even when it DIDN't
> work 1/10th as reliably as today's Windows.

Do your thought patterns often diverge this much?
You're contradicting yourself.  You are saying you
used Unix (a success by your own definition) despite
it's lack of reliability (aka quality).

Frank

Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

[Wesley Groleau]

> things that succeed because they are cheap, not quality.  People 

I read a story today about a shop owner who
was told his ailing business would thrive
if he would just put up a sign about speaking
Spanish.  He declined because he didn't want
to deceive anyone.  The "advisor" gave him a
sign that said
  "No hablamos espa�ol, pero vendemos barato"
It worked!
  (We don't speak Spanish, but we sell cheap."

> fairly frequently.  I will say XP is about as close to a Mac as Windows
> has ever been.  I use XP but I haven't done any development on it so far,

I'm a long-time Mac fan, but I must disagree.
WinXP is reliable, but it stinks for a lot of
other reasons.  Win2K and WinNT however, we're
approaching "decent."  I was getting really
irritated at Apple for letting Redmond pass them
up in the reliability department.  I think they
released OS X (Unix core) barely in time to save
themselves from following Amiga to near oblivion.

Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64bitaddressing and OOP

[Richard Riehle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: soft-eng [mailto:softeng3456@netscape.net]
>
> > But having them directly in the language itself makes
> > just learning the basic language unnecessarily harder.
> > And the trouble is, you don't get anything really
> > worthwhile out of all the time you spend on
> > mastering all that syntax.  You would have
> > been better off mastering concepts instead.

You are missing an important point, one that very likely
is not important to you, but which is important for the
development of large-scale, safety-critical software
with a programming team.

Those built-in features you disparage are designed to
work together so the compiler can detect inconsistencies,
errors, and omissions.   This is not as easy to accomplish
with those other languages you favor since there is none
of the capability for such thorough checking.  For example,
Ada has built-in tasking.   When using C++, I am required
to use external libraries.  The C++ environment does not
do the kind of careful evaluation of my use of those external
libraries that I enjoy in Ada.  Therefore, my confidence in
the overall compatibility of my design is less than it would
be in a system of comparable size in Ada.

The level of compiler-based checking possible in Ada does
not exist in C++, Java, or most other competing languages.
This is why Ada remains the most appropriate language
when one is concerned with software safety.  Unless you
have experience developing in this environment, you are
likely to have little appreciation for this level of rigor. Those
who have enjoyed Ada's benefits in developing software
will attest to its power.

Richard Riehle

RE: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bitaddressing and OOP

[Beard, Frank Randolph CIV]

Has anybody else seen this article that is of relevance here?

http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2003-5/0428m.html#item2

I'd be interested in softeng3456's (nice cryptic non-software 
engineering name) opinion here, since it some what opposes his 
ideas.  

I'm not sure he will see this if it's only posted on comp.lang.ada.

Frank