RE: why ada is so unpopular ?

RE: why ada is so unpopular ?

[amado.alves]

"How do you bind your handles?"

I'll step in, too.

Ada has ways of getting the name of 'enumerals' (is that the proper term?) and exceptions as strings, so no problem here. For functions there are compiler-dependent ways (e.g. GNAT's symbolic traceback). And for everything there is ASIS: as the idea is to move in the direction of compile-time, it fits.

why ada is so unpopular ?

[Szymon Guz]

Hi,
I'd like to know how ada is popular ? And i which countries. I'm asking 
because I live in Poland and here I couldn't find any firm that use it.

szymon guz

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Martin Dowie]

"Szymon Guz" <alpha@skynetSMIECI.VONorg.NOJUSZpl> wrote in message
news:bub5n8$kf5$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
> Hi,
> I'd like to know how ada is popular ? And i which countries. I'm asking
> because I live in Poland and here I couldn't find any firm that use it.

Check your local military suppliers. We certainly sell Ada-based products
to Poland.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Military uses. It's answer to question why unpopular.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Szymon Guz]

Dmytry Lavrov wrote:
> Military uses. It's answer to question why unpopular.

I see. But I'd like to know if it is worth learning. I'd like to write a 
program and maybe in future earn on that and I still don't know what to 
choose ada or C++.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Adrian Knoth]

Szymon Guz <alpha@skynetSMIECI.VONorg.NOJUSZpl> wrote:

>> Military uses. It's answer to question why unpopular.
> program and maybe in future earn on that and I still don't know what to 
> choose ada or C++.

If your program solves the problem then your clients won't ask which
language do you've used.

If you're more common with C++, then use C++. If you need some
libraries only available for C++, use C++. If you think you might
get serious problems in quality when using C++, use Ada. ;)

And never forget: While the Ada-guys go out for lunch the C++-devision
is still using the debugger ;) [don't remember the exact quote]

-- 
mail: adi@thur.de  	http://adi.thur.de	PGP: v2-key via keyserver

Kosmetik ist die Kunst aus der Not eine Jugend zu machen!

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Szymon Guz]

Adrian Knoth wrote:

> Szymon Guz <alpha@skynetSMIECI.VONorg.NOJUSZpl> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Military uses. It's answer to question why unpopular.
>>
>>program and maybe in future earn on that and I still don't know what to 
>>choose ada or C++.
> 
> 
> If your program solves the problem then your clients won't ask which
> language do you've used.
> 
> If you're more common with C++, then use C++. If you need some
> libraries only available for C++, use C++. If you think you might
> get serious problems in quality when using C++, use Ada. ;)
> 
> And never forget: While the Ada-guys go out for lunch the C++-devision
> is still using the debugger ;) [don't remember the exact quote]
> 

well.. I know that, but my problem is a little bit different. I don't 
have money for sth like Builder or Kylix or Visual but I think that my 
program really needs to operate on some windows. I don't want to write 
that using WinApi nor Gtk; First of all the Gtk/Qt licence is not good 
for me and WinApi is terrible. I wanted to use wxWindows. It is written 
in C++, that's why I still don't know what to choose. Mix wxWindows(C++) 
with Ada or just use C++.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Luke A. Guest]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:16 +0100, Szymon Guz wrote:

> well.. I know that, but my problem is a little bit different. I don't 
> have money for sth like Builder or Kylix or Visual but I think that my 
> program really needs to operate on some windows. I don't want to write 
> that using WinApi nor Gtk; First of all the Gtk/Qt licence is not good 
> for me and WinApi is terrible. I wanted to use wxWindows. It is written 
> in C++, that's why I still don't know what to choose. Mix wxWindows(C++) 
> with Ada or just use C++.

Hmm, I asked this on the wxWindows list the other day, the reply was that
the easiest way to do it would be to add an Ada backend to SWIG and use
the code from wxPython.

I can't be bothered as I haven't got the time.

Luke.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Ronald Dauster]

Szymon Guz wrote:

> 
> well.. I know that, but my problem is a little bit different. I don't 
> have money for sth like Builder or Kylix or Visual but I think that my 
> program really needs to operate on some windows. I don't want to write 
> that using WinApi nor Gtk; First of all the Gtk/Qt licence is not good 

The Gtk and Qt licenses are substantially different. GTK is under
LGPL and I do not see, where this creates a problem. Qt, of course, 
either requires your application to be licensed under GPL or you have
to buy a commercial license.

> for me and WinApi is terrible. I wanted to use wxWindows. It is written 
> in C++, that's why I still don't know what to choose. Mix wxWindows(C++) 
> with Ada or just use C++.

As far as I know, there is no Ada binding to wxWindows and, given the
size and programming style of wxWindows, it will be a _lot_ of work to 
create one.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]

To what I know too, there's no Ada binding for it....and it would probably
be equal or less work to port the whole library to Ada instead of attempting
to bind to it.

-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com


"Ronald Dauster" <rpd@gido.remove_this_part.de> wrote in message
news:budvvf$9al$1@online.de...
> Szymon Guz wrote:
>
> >
> > well.. I know that, but my problem is a little bit different. I don't
> > have money for sth like Builder or Kylix or Visual but I think that my
> > program really needs to operate on some windows. I don't want to write
> > that using WinApi nor Gtk; First of all the Gtk/Qt licence is not good
>
> The Gtk and Qt licenses are substantially different. GTK is under
> LGPL and I do not see, where this creates a problem. Qt, of course,
> either requires your application to be licensed under GPL or you have
> to buy a commercial license.
>
> > for me and WinApi is terrible. I wanted to use wxWindows. It is written
> > in C++, that's why I still don't know what to choose. Mix wxWindows(C++)
> > with Ada or just use C++.
>
> As far as I know, there is no Ada binding to wxWindows and, given the
> size and programming style of wxWindows, it will be a _lot_ of work to
> create one.
>
>
>

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Szymon Guz]

Ronald Dauster wrote:

> Szymon Guz wrote:
> 
>>
>> well.. I know that, but my problem is a little bit different. I don't 
>> have money for sth like Builder or Kylix or Visual but I think that my 
>> program really needs to operate on some windows. I don't want to write 
>> that using WinApi nor Gtk; First of all the Gtk/Qt licence is not good 
> 
> 
> The Gtk and Qt licenses are substantially different. GTK is under
> LGPL and I do not see, where this creates a problem. Qt, of course, 
> either requires your application to be licensed under GPL or you have
> to buy a commercial license.
> 

well...
I wrote that thinking that GTK is licenced under GPL, I'll check that 
because I'm not sure how it really is.
The commercial licence of Qt is too expensive for me and the GPL licence 
means that my program have to licensed under GPL and I want to avoid that.

>> for me and WinApi is terrible. I wanted to use wxWindows. It is 
>> written in C++, that's why I still don't know what to choose. Mix 
>> wxWindows(C++) with Ada or just use C++.
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there is no Ada binding to wxWindows and, given the
> size and programming style of wxWindows, it will be a _lot_ of work to 
> create one.
> 

so does that all mean that I should use C++ for that ?

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

My understanding of Gtk - at least in its Ada incarnation GtkAda - was 
that it is licensed such that an application that calls it is not 
subject to the GPL license. Should one modify the library itself, those 
changes would naturally be covered by the GPL, but to simply use it as a 
GUI interface would not require you to put your app under the GPL. Am I 
wrong about this?

MDC

Szymon Guz wrote:
> 
> well...
> I wrote that thinking that GTK is licenced under GPL, I'll check that 
> because I'm not sure how it really is.
> The commercial licence of Qt is too expensive for me and the GPL licence 
> means that my program have to licensed under GPL and I want to avoid that.
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Szymon Guz]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> My understanding of Gtk - at least in its Ada incarnation GtkAda - was 
> that it is licensed such that an application that calls it is not 
> subject to the GPL license. Should one modify the library itself, those 
> changes would naturally be covered by the GPL, but to simply use it as a 
> GUI interface would not require you to put your app under the GPL. Am I 
> wrong about this?
> 
> MDC
> 

yea, you're right.. I've checked that and for suer it the LGPL licence:

"GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project. However, the 
licensing terms for GTK+, the GNU LGPL, allow it to be used by all 
developers, including those developing proprietary software, without any 
license fees or royalties."
http://gtk.org/faq/#AEN81

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Jeffrey Carter]

Szymon Guz wrote:

> yea, you're right.. I've checked that and for suer it the LGPL licence:
> 
> "GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project. However, the 
> licensing terms for GTK+, the GNU LGPL, allow it to be used by all 
> developers, including those developing proprietary software, without any 
> license fees or royalties."
> http://gtk.org/faq/#AEN81

GtkAda, the Ada binding to GTK+, is under the GNAT-Modified GPL (GMGPL), 
so Ada programs using GTK through GtkAda can be proprietary if the 
developer desires.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Ada has made you lazy and careless. You can write programs in C that
are just as safe by the simple application of super-human diligence."
E. Robert Tisdale
72

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-01-18, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
> My understanding of Gtk - at least in its Ada incarnation GtkAda - was 
> that it is licensed such that an application that calls it is not 
> subject to the GPL license. Should one modify the library itself, those 
> changes would naturally be covered by the GPL, but to simply use it as a 
> GUI interface would not require you to put your app under the GPL. Am I 
> wrong about this?

Nope.

The GtkAda license:

License

This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so
that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license
is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read
the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on
gtk and GtkAda. 


-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

I don't know about the Gtk license itself or why GtkAda would have to 
modify it slightly to enable the writing of proprietary software. What I 
gathered by looking at the GtkAda license at least was that one could 
develop an entirely proprietary app that made the Gtk calls through the 
GtkAda binding. If one was doing a Gtk based interface, GtkAda seems 
like the only logical choice (unless one needs Gtk capabilities that 
aren't supported in GtkAda - a problem that all such bindings have and 
an argument as to why Ada ought to have its own GUI.)

It seems the best choice for a semi-portable interface if that is the 
requirement. GPL "infection" does not seem to be an issue AFAICS.

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so
> that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license
> is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read
> the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on
> gtk and GtkAda. 
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-01-19, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
> I don't know about the Gtk license itself or why GtkAda would have to 
> modify it slightly to enable the writing of proprietary software.

Gtk usees LGPL
GtkAda uses GMGPL

as simple as that.

> aren't supported in GtkAda - a problem that all such bindings have and 
> an argument as to why Ada ought to have its own GUI.)

Well if you look at Java you see that the GUI isn't the same in all
platforms and IMHO the GUI is butt-ugly.

The only benifit of a special Ada GUI would be portability and not
having to use C library.

-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Well if you look at Java you see that the GUI isn't the same in all
> platforms and IMHO the GUI is butt-ugly.
> 
Java's GUI may or may not be butt-ugly. But one thing it is: It's 
_Java's_ GUI and as it evolves, Java users pretty much get full access 
to whatever new features are added without having to wait for some 
binding to catch up.


> The only benifit of a special Ada GUI would be portability and not
> having to use C library.
> 

Portability would be one thing, but not the only thing. "Product 
Distinction" would be another: An Ada GUI could go its own way and do 
things "The Ada Way" from the programmer's perspective and might even 
provide a unique "Look & Feel" to Ada apps. (People might then actually 
*care* that their apps were done with Ada, eh?) You'd also benefit from 
the fact that (as observed above for Java) it would be _Ada's_ GUI and 
there would be no waiting around for some binding to catch up. It goes 
its own direction, develops its own look-and-feel and might start 
developing features that user's of other languages would wish *they* had 
available to them. (Hint: Switch to Ada and you can have them.)

I've tinkered with GtkAda and - while it is a good and useful thing - I 
can observe that there seem to be some features that Gtk has (under 
Gnome?) that are simply not available through GtkAda. One might want to 
use those features - but its either roll your own, wait for GtkAda to 
catch up or go use C/C++ like the entire rest of the world does. What do 
you suppose most programmers do? (Hint: Look at the relative popularity 
of C/C++ to that of Ada.)

This is always the problem that Ada has with bindings, etc. It's playing 
the "Me Too!!!!" catch-up game. The best you can hope for then is to 
come in second-place. That's why Ada ought to be developing a library of 
its own to supply a GUI and the other things that seem to come along for 
the ride with C++ or Java.

MDC



-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-01-19, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
> Java's GUI may or may not be butt-ugly. But one thing it is: It's 
> _Java's_ GUI and as it evolves, Java users pretty much get full access 
> to whatever new features are added without having to wait for some 
> binding to catch up.

Well, who would be in charge of an Ada GUI and develop it actively and
not every 10-15 years ?

> Portability would be one thing, but not the only thing. "Product 
> Distinction" would be another: An Ada GUI could go its own way and do 
> things "The Ada Way" from the programmer's perspective and might even 
> provide a unique "Look & Feel" to Ada apps. (People might then actually 
> *care* that their apps were done with Ada, eh?)

Sure, but there are other things that the GUI to show that. My problem
is that there are X GUIs and Y OSes out there already.

> I've tinkered with GtkAda and - while it is a good and useful thing -
> I can observe that there seem to be some features that Gtk has (under
> Gnome?) that are simply not available through GtkAda. One might want
> to use those features - but its either roll your own, wait for GtkAda
> to catch up or go use C/C++ like the entire rest of the world does.
> What do you suppose most programmers do? (Hint: Look at the relative
> popularity of C/C++ to that of Ada.)

Well if you look at the timespan for developing Gtk you'll see it isn't
a trivial task. Making a binding is, however, much more trivial.

> This is always the problem that Ada has with bindings, etc. It's
> playing the "Me Too!!!!" catch-up game. The best you can hope for then
> is to come in second-place. That's why Ada ought to be developing a
> library of its own to supply a GUI and the other things that seem to
> come along for the ride with C++ or Java.

Yes I agree. But I want a container library +++ first.

-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Well, who would be in charge of an Ada GUI and develop it actively and
> not every 10-15 years ?
> 
Who's in charge of Java's GUI? Do they update it only every 10 to 15 
years? Why is it that Java can do it but Ada can't? (Besides lack of 
will.) Here's the point: Java can find a way to react quickly to a 
changing world and provide developers with tools to help them do their 
jobs with greater speed. Ada can't because of lack of will to do so. Who 
wins? (Hint: the answer is Java. ;-)


> 
> Sure, but there are other things that the GUI to show that. My problem
> is that there are X GUIs and Y OSes out there already.
> 
How did Java manage to get a GUI that seems to be useful across a number 
of platforms? How did it succeed in something that looks so hopeless? 
Realistically, a GUI needs to support Windows and X-Windows (across a 
few different flavors of Unix) and it can cover 90% of the market. The 
rest? You say "Here is the GUI library in source - go make it work for 
yourself if you have to use something off-the-wall..."

Ada has this "Portability Fetish" that often cripples it. "If we can't 
make a feature work on everything from a PC to a digital toaster then it 
can't be part of the language!" We solve that with some kind of library 
external to the standard that exists in source and works on some stated 
number of platforms and where it doesn't work - don't try to use it. The 
problem, of course, is to get the vendors to actually think that Ada 
*needs* something like this and exhibit the will & leadership to get it.



> 
> Well if you look at the timespan for developing Gtk you'll see it isn't
> a trivial task. Making a binding is, however, much more trivial.
> 
I never said a GUI was a trivial task. What I said was that the C 
programmers are always going to get it *first* and its going to look the 
way *C programmers* want it to look. The Ada programmers will always get 
it later and will have to struggle with the usual C metaphors. As long 
as Ada depends on bindings for this sort of thing, Ada programmers are 
sucking hind tit. Developers ask themselves "Do I want to suck hind 
tit?" Generally the answer is "No!" and they go develop in C/C++ or 
Java. So long as Ada is in that ugly position, developers will stay away 
from it in droves. They'll go where they can get the most bang for the 
buck - and for the most part, that's not Ada.


> 
> Yes I agree. But I want a container library +++ first.
> 
I have absolutely no objection to a container library. However, we 
barely see any real will to get even *that* as a standard with the 
vendors lacking the leadership to get in front of the problem and say 
"Here's the answer that everyone should start to agree on..." I suppose 
if they want to lose the compiler-wars, that's up to them. 
Realistically, developers can look at Java and (to some extent) C++ and 
see that they are getting a whole lot more leverage by way of a library 
than they do with Ada.

Your average uncommitted developer is going to see all that leverage and 
ask "So why is it I should go with some obscure, niche programming 
language that offers me less in the way of tools and I have to struggle 
by being incompatible with the whole rest of the universe? What do I get 
for this? An unquantified cost savings in maintenance ten years down the 
line and a few less bugs? My software doesn't live that long and I can 
tolerate a few bugs and what I gain in development leverage will easily 
outweigh the cost of fixing the bugs if I really need to." Its basically 
a no-brainer that is consistently demonstrated over and over again by 
the fact that developers are using languages other than Ada.

The question is simple: "Do you want Ada to be around in ten years with 
a healthy, large user base?" If you'll settle for Ada being some niche 
language used in a few antique projects (like Jovial?) then it certainly 
can have that much strength. But if you want Ada to be a "Player" in the 
language market, then Ada had better start finding a way to offer *more* 
leverage to the developer than does its competitors.

MDC


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

I'm aware of who takes care of Java's library and the differences 
between Java and Ada with respect to reference implementation versus 
standards. The point is that if Java can manage to have a library and a 
GUI that is at least mostly portable (via reference implementation) then 
why can't Ada? Its proven to be a popular route and one that can be 
handled well enough to keep the user community happy. It adds leverage 
to development and makes Java a good choice for lots of apps. Is Ada 
going to sit around and say "Sure it could be useful to you but I won't 
do it because it violates some intellectual purism I have in mind..."? 
That just makes language choice really simple: use Java. ;-)

MDC

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> 
> 	Most likely, SUN. Java is, essentially, owned by one company.
> THEY define it, and they release the reference implementation. What Sun
> releases, in effect, defines the "standard".
> 
> 	Ada, OTOH, is not defined by implementations -- the converse in
> fact. The formal standard document defines the language, implementations
> are expected to conform to that standard. When Ada was first defined,
> one of the requirements of the language was that there be no supersets
> or subsets of the language. Any differences from the standard meant that
> the result language could NOT be called Ada -- in those days, if anyone
> could be said to own Ada, it was the US DoD <G>.
> 
> 	The other item is that Java's GUI is defined at a high-level,
> and relies on low-level /OS specific/ code in the JVM. There is no such
> beast in Ada. Any graphical library would have to be built in versions
> for each OS.
> 
> --  
>  > ============================================================== <
>  >   wlfraed@ix.netcom.com  | Wulfraed  Dennis Lee Bieber  KD6MOG <
>  >      wulfraed@dm.net     |       Bestiaria Support Staff       <
>  > ============================================================== <
>  >           Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/>            <
>  >        Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/>        <


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Jeff C,]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com...
> I don't know about the Gtk license itself or why GtkAda would have to
> modify it slightly to enable the writing of proprietary software. What I
> gathered by looking at the GtkAda license at least was that one could
> develop an entirely proprietary app that made the Gtk calls through the
> GtkAda binding. If one was doing a Gtk based interface, GtkAda seems
> like the only logical choice (unless one needs Gtk capabilities that
> aren't supported in GtkAda - a problem that all such bindings have and
> an argument as to why Ada ought to have its own GUI.)
>
> It seems the best choice for a semi-portable interface if that is the
> requirement. GPL "infection" does not seem to be an issue AFAICS.
>
> MDC
>
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> >
> > This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so
> > that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license
> > is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read
> > the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on
> > gtk and GtkAda.
> >
> >
>

The "read the license part" is just a warning that this software (like
almost
all software) is covered by A license so make sure you understand the
terms before development.


The reason that the GNAT libraries and GtkAda use a modified GPL instead
of an LGPL is that it is difficult  (if not impossible) to comply with the
terms of
the LGPL in Ada (and in many cases C++) with proprietary distribution.

WARNING. NON LAWYER APPROXIMATION OF TRUTH TO FOLLOW

The LGPL requires that you distribute source with your execuables or that
you
distribute your execuables in such a way that the components that are LGPL
can
be updated by the end users (e.g. dynamically link to the LGPL library or
provide .o files for all the proprietary stuff)..This woulld in theory allow
an end user
to fix a bug in the LGPL component (or get a bug fix link library) and
"update"
the program.

The problem in Ada (and actually in other languages) is that there are
pieces of
code that at hard to do this with. If you have and LGPL generic it is
essentially impossible
with GNAT to have that be an LGPL component since the generic expantion
happens
at compile time. Something like this is also true of C++ and to some exent C
header
files.

So the GMGPL is actually a slightly lesser (in RMS speak) language than the
LGPL (meaning
that it does not require the "field upgrade" capability of the LGPL.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Robert I. Eachus]

Jeff C, wrote:

> So the GMGPL is actually a slightly lesser (in RMS speak) language than the
> LGPL (meaning that it does not require the "field upgrade" capability of the LGPL.

I am not picking on Jeff, who does a good job of describing why GTK+ 
uses LGPL and GtkAda uses GMGPL.  I just want to say that the consensus 
is that GtkAda can be used without any "Gnu contamination" of your 
application.  You can release such a program as proprietary or if you 
prefer copylefted or into the public domain.  All you really need to 
know is that the respective developers got their licensing right so that 
you don't need to worry.

As to GtkAda, it seems to be the consensus Ada graphics library right 
now.  It would be nice if someone would update it, but probably the best 
way to describe the situation is that it is much better than "good 
enough" so no one currently seems to feel a need to do better.

-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, 
cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our 
perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- 
George W. Bush

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[cl1]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_NedndNu6J_W_5Hd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> Jeff C, wrote:
>
> > So the GMGPL is actually a slightly lesser (in RMS speak) language than
the
> > LGPL (meaning that it does not require the "field upgrade" capability of
the LGPL.
>
> I am not picking on Jeff, who does a good job of describing why GTK+
> uses LGPL and GtkAda uses GMGPL.  I just want to say that the consensus
> is that GtkAda can be used without any "Gnu contamination" of your
> application.  You can release such a program as proprietary or if you
> prefer copylefted or into the public domain.  All you really need to
> know is that the respective developers got their licensing right so that
> you don't need to worry.
>
> As to GtkAda, it seems to be the consensus Ada graphics library right
> now.  It would be nice if someone would update it, but probably the best
> way to describe the situation is that it is much better than "good
> enough" so no one currently seems to feel a need to do better.

Last i checked gtkada was current with gtk+
http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/
and it also has some stuff that gtk+ doesn't have(not that i have used that
stuff)
>
> -- 
>                                            Robert I. Eachus
>
> "The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture,
> cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our
> perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- 
> George W. Bush
>

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Robert I. Eachus]

cl1 wrote:

> Last i checked gtkada was current with gtk+
> http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/
> and it also has some stuff that gtk+ doesn't have(not that i have used that
> stuff)

Shrug.  I would like it if GtkAda had a more Ada-like binding. But as I 
said it is more than good enough so other things are higher on my 
priority list.

-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, 
cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our 
perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- 
George W. Bush

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-01-20, Robert I. Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Shrug.  I would like it if GtkAda had a more Ada-like binding. But as I 
> said it is more than good enough so other things are higher on my 
> priority list.

Please descibe what you mean.


-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Robert I. Eachus]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> On 2004-01-20, Robert I. Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>Shrug.  I would like it if GtkAda had a more Ada-like binding. But as I 
>>said it is more than good enough so other things are higher on my 
>>priority list.
> 
> 
> Please descibe what you mean.

Exactly what I said.  There are some areas where, when I use GtkAda, I 
think "It might be nice if..."  Then when I think about it a bit more, I 
realize what a major undertaking it would take compared to the very 
minor benefit, and forget about it.  I'd mention specific cases, but as 
I said, I can't even think of any that were worth remembering. ;-)

Just in case anyone thinks I am 'damning with faint praise', there is a 
very good reason that GtkAda is currently the most used Ada graphics 
interface, and that is that it is by far the best.  There are lots of 
other things where an investment of my time may make a difference, 
excuse me if I get back to them.

Incidently when Ada0Y is finalized and compilers comform to it, I 
suspect that changing GtkAda to use interfaces and constructors in some 
areas will be well worth the effort.  But that is probably a project for 
next year, or the year after.

-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, 
cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our 
perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- 
George W. Bush

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Stephen Leake]

Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> writes:

> On 2004-01-20, Robert I. Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Shrug.  I would like it if GtkAda had a more Ada-like binding. But as I 
> > said it is more than good enough so other things are higher on my 
> > priority list.
> 
> Please descibe what you mean.

I'll jump in here :)

GtkAda currently follows Gtk+ in using strings to name events; the Ada
way would be to use enumerals, named constants, or function names.

GtkAda also allows the user to easily bind an incorrect handler to an
event ("incorrect" here meaning "has the wrong parameter/result
profile"). The error is reported at run-time, but the Ada way is to
catch this error at compile time.

In my GtkAda projects, I'm attempting to fix both issues, by providing
child packages for the current GtkAda packages that present the "Ada
way". If it works out, I'll propose it as a change to be incorporated
(some things would benefit from being primitive operations, which must
be in the same package as the type).

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-01-20, Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote:
> GtkAda also allows the user to easily bind an incorrect handler to an
> event ("incorrect" here meaning "has the wrong parameter/result
> profile"). The error is reported at run-time, but the Ada way is to
> catch this error at compile time.

How do you bind your handles? If I remember correctly there are two
ways, the C way and the Ada way already. At least I use marshals which
will make the compiler catch errors at compile time.

Can you give a source example?

-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

Its *always* worth learning a programming language because it can show 
you the strengths and weaknesses of other languages & improves your 
programming skills in general. Learning Ada might teach you a thing or 
two about what is good/bad about something like C++ - whereas ignorance 
of Ada and knowledge only of C++ (for example) tends to leave you blind 
about how things might otherwise be done.

As for earning anything from the experience, you might consider this: If 
you decide to write a *useful* program, there are ways that the program 
may generate some money for you. Nobody will care much that it was 
written in Ada or C++ or Java. Come up with a good idea and get a 
baseline product built and see if you can find some users. Make money by 
selling upgrades or by licensing the technology or any number of other 
business models.

As for simple employment, while a company may be looking for a dozen 
years of experience in Programming Language X - showing them on your 
resume that you know a *variety* of languages tends to indicate that you 
are a quick learner and adaptable as well as well educated. Any 
experience cannot possibly hurt you.

Learning some Ada is an excellent way of discovering techniques and 
capabilities you aren't likely to see duplicated in other languages.

Szymon Guz wrote:
> 
> I see. But I'd like to know if it is worth learning. I'd like to write a 
> program and maybe in future earn on that and I still don't know what to 
> choose ada or C++.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> showing them on your resume that you know a *variety* of languages
 > tends to indicate that you are a quick learner and adaptable as well
 > as well educated. Any experience cannot possibly hurt you.

I interviewed a programming candidate for my compnay not long ago who
had C++ and Ada on his resume. I was looking forward to a nice chat on
comparing the two languages. Unfortunately, it turned out that the
candidate knew nothing about either one.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[cl1]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:WskOb.68$Wm4.21@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> > showing them on your resume that you know a *variety* of languages
>  > tends to indicate that you are a quick learner and adaptable as well
>  > as well educated. Any experience cannot possibly hurt you.
>
> I interviewed a programming candidate for my compnay not long ago who
> had C++ and Ada on his resume. I was looking forward to a nice chat on
> comparing the two languages. Unfortunately, it turned out that the
> candidate knew nothing about either one.
and this is why it took me almost 2 years to find a job

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Hyman Rosen]

cl1 wrote:
> and this is why it took me almost 2 years to find a job

You mean that you too put things on your resume that you
didn't know anything about?

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[cl1]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:MQmOb.124$Wm4.66@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> cl1 wrote:
> > and this is why it took me almost 2 years to find a job
>
> You mean that you too put things on your resume that you
> didn't know anything about?

god no! but there are so many people who do it's been like playing the
lottery to get my resume in front of companies to get an interview. I no
longer have this problem as of last friday. (yippie) i start my new job as
and ASP/VB developer on monday...
... i feel like such a whore. but at least i'm writing code :)

someday i hope to write really good stuff with ada on a linux platform as
soon as i can find someone to hire me. but i think it would help for me to
have more than a few months of learning experiance with ada before i attempt
that endevor.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

Resumes are a little like "Marketing" (in the bad sense of the word). 
You often have to divide everything by 10. Perhaps this is why companies 
seem to be paying very little attention to them these days. I know when 
my boss and I are discussing personnel, his push is always to find 
someone that someone else in the organization can give a good 
recommendation for or otherwise get them vetted by a reliable source. 
Blind resumes may or may not tell you much about the candidate. Even if 
the person didn't exagerate his skills too badly, it doesn't tell you 
much about work habbits and interpersonal skills. I don't care how many 
languages a guy has or how much experience he can show if he is 
incapable of getting a job done on time or can't get along with his 
co-workers & customers. You sometimes can't tell that until its too 
late. ;-)

MDC


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> I interviewed a programming candidate for my compnay not long ago who
> had C++ and Ada on his resume. I was looking forward to a nice chat on
> comparing the two languages. Unfortunately, it turned out that the
> candidate knew nothing about either one.


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[chris]

Szymon Guz wrote:
> Dmytry Lavrov wrote:
> 
>> Military uses. It's answer to question why unpopular.
> 
> I see. But I'd like to know if it is worth learning. I'd like to write a 
> program and maybe in future earn on that and I still don't know what to 
> choose ada or C++.

I've tried Gtkmm and GtkAda.  Gtkmm was easier to use to begin with, but 
I ran into a problem with the model I was building because I didn't 
understand C++ too well (templates specifically).  In Ada it was easier 
to build the model because I know the language fairly well, but the view 
in GtkAda was a little more difficult (or in the way... don't like 
generically instantiated handlers).

It's a trade off.  I went for Ada, but only because C++ got on my nerves 
and I found the Oz documentation too academic... there are enough 
academics messing with my brain at the minute. ;)

Personally I'd try both and see what fits... no wait!  I did ;)


Chris

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Jano]

Szymon Guz dice...
> Hi,
> I'd like to know how ada is popular ? And i which countries. I'm asking 
> because I live in Poland and here I couldn't find any firm that use it.

It's the language of choice to teach several subjects in Zaragoza 
(Spain) college, computer engineering. I couldn't say about other 
colleges in Spain.

Introduction to programming.
Data structures and algorithms.
Concurrent programming.
Real time programming.
Embedded systems.

I may be missing something.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Luke A. Guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:15:35 +0100, Szymon Guz wrote:

> Hi,
> I'd like to know how ada is popular ? And i which countries. I'm asking 
> because I live in Poland and here I couldn't find any firm that use it.

Well, I wouldn't say that Ada is unpopular. There are other factors to
take into consideration:

1) Management don't know about Ada.
2) Management tend to want the programmers to use languages that are the
current fad, i.e. C/C++.
3) I had to learn Ada at uni and I had no idea about before then. I
actually love the language, It has so many features not found anywhere
else that are (IMO) necessary for development.
4) Programmers learn what is required of them.
5) The DoD (supposedly) dropped all support for Ada and this then looks
(to the outsider) that the language is dead.

I think that if enough programmers get to know Ada, I think that better
programming standards will emerge, but it's up to those who know it
and those who can tell others about it to spread the word and make sure
that others start to use it.

Luke.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 2) Management tend to want the programmers to use
 > languages that are the current fad, i.e. C/C++.

And they all communicate in that fad language English
instead of using NewSpeak. Despite the fact that in
NewSpeak your sentences are clear and unambiguous,
people are still required to use languages which fail
to accurately deliver to the listener the intent of
the speaker. Remember, "You can't put too much water
into a nuclear reactor!"

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:15:35 +0100, Szymon Guz wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to know how ada is popular ? And i which countries. I'm asking 
> > because I live in Poland and here I couldn't find any firm that use it.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't say that Ada is unpopular. There are other factors to
> take into consideration:
> 
> 1) Management don't know about Ada.
> 2) Management tend to want the programmers to use languages that are the
> current fad, i.e. C/C++.

In my view their attitude is more cynical than that.  The reason why
they want programmers to use "mainstream" languages is so they can
replace programmers easily without retraining.  They want programmers
to be disposable and interchangeable just like a piece of commodity
hardware.  They don't mind that their language of choice has an
adverse effect on the quality of software, because they're interested
in selling bug fixes, upgrades and maintenance.  They also don't mind
that disposable programmers will produce disposable software.  They're
in fact quite happy about it.

I don't like to sound so pessimistic, but I've actually gotten a
manager to admit openly to all of the above.  Now that was at a very
large company that makes enterprise data storage products.  I was not
a nuclear, aerospace, or rail company.  I hope there are still
companies that try to produce quality software.

> 3) I had to learn Ada at uni and I had no idea about before then. I
> actually love the language, It has so many features not found anywhere
> else that are (IMO) necessary for development.

Yes.  Furthermore, I have found that people who learn Ada often change
their attitude regarding software development.  They no longer want to
develop junk, disposable software; instead they want to develop
quality software that lasts.

(yes, there are many people who actually like developing disposable
software; those are the ones who promote and improve on scripting
languages like Perl or Python to a point where they change from being
prototyping languages to being implementation languages).

> 4) Programmers learn what is required of them.
> 5) The DoD (supposedly) dropped all support for Ada and this then looks
> (to the outsider) that the language is dead.
> 
> I think that if enough programmers get to know Ada, I think that better
> programming standards will emerge, but it's up to those who know it
> and those who can tell others about it to spread the word and make sure
> that others start to use it.
> 
> Luke.

I would like to see more free software developed in Ada.  The free
software world does not try to produce disposable software, and
therefore would benefit from a language that helps improve quality.
Perhaps, that way, Ada will become a little bit more mainstream.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
 > I've actually gotten a manager to admit openly to all of the above.

I'll bet he was just tired of your badgering him about Ada,
and told you that to get you to go away and leave him alone.
I do that with my three-year old sometimes too.

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Robert A Duff]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> I'll bet he was just tired of your badgering him about Ada,
> and told you that to get you to go away and leave him alone.
> I do that with my three-year old sometimes too.

I'm glad to know your three-year-old badgers you about Ada. ;-)
Good taste.

- Bob

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[chris]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> Well, I wouldn't say that Ada is unpopular. There are other factors to
> take into consideration:
> 
> 1) Management don't know about Ada.

If they knew, would they care?  In the desktop, I don't think so. 
Ludovic is right in the disposability of programmers.  Especially today.

Do you know how many software developers are out in just the UK there 
looking for jobs (like me)?  Loads!  The more experienced SEs might even 
have to take a pay drop (in terms of what they're worth) just to get a 
job.  There is not as much money as there used to be out there and 
people aren't going to take risks moving over to other technologies if 
the technologies they have do the job and there's a steady stream of 
programmers conversant in those technologies available.  Unis teach 
graduates the hot technology and the cycle repeats!


> 2) Management tend to want the programmers to use languages that are the
> current fad, i.e. C/C++.
> 3) I had to learn Ada at uni and I had no idea about before then. I
> actually love the language, It has so many features not found anywhere
> else that are (IMO) necessary for development.

I used to think so, but have found similar features in other languages 
expressed more powerfully and also with the benefit of run time 
portability and lots of tools targetting the desktop developer.  Ocaml 
for instance library support on the desktop exceeds Ada's with the 
exception of GUI toolkits (there are only a couple of these), despite 
being a functionally imperative language from the research community (or 
maybe it doesn't, but appears so since there is a central repository 
full of current links & sw).

I think the perception from uni is that Ada is a good language, but why 
spend time making data structure libraries or downloading them when C++, 
C#, Delphi (iirc) and Java have them out of the box.  Data structures 
will be remedied but what about XML?  It has no place in the standard 
but what if compilers came with an XML parser, a gui toolkit and 
whatever else need be.  Note it doesn't take ACT (specifically) to do 
this.  Someone could package it up for people and let them download it. 
  Some Ada compiler companies might do this already but are they expensive?


> I think that if enough programmers get to know Ada, I think that better
> programming standards will emerge, but it's up to those who know it
> and those who can tell others about it to spread the word and make sure
> that others start to use it.

It's a nice language yes, but it's one of *many* such languages.


Chris

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

Its not a totally illigitimate concern. Programmers come and go. Its 
expensive and risky to use *anything* outside of the mainstream.

Hardware is a good example. Would you rather support a current version 
of an IBM PC or an old DEC Alpha/VMS system? The old system is *really* 
costly to maintain because nobody is mass producing parts for it and not 
as many programmers know how to use it, etc. All that adds cost to a 
project. The technical superiority of an Alpha over a PC is irrelevant. 
You'd be building your system on top of an antique and the first 
breakdown you have is going to kill you.

As for "disposable" programmers - would you be willing to sign a 
long-term contract promising never to leave the company you are at? 
Probably not. Hence a manager needs to consider the possibility that you 
might quit and what does he do in that case? He would have to hire and 
train someone else - costly and time consuming. So using a language that 
is widely known and platforms that are widely used, he minimizes risks 
and costs. That's what managers are *supposed* to do.

Rather than complain about "stupid management" we ought to be helping 
them solve their problems. If Ada had much more capability and 
widespread use, then the manager has substantially less risk in going 
that route. Give the poor guy something he can *trust* will be around, 
supported, low cost and high leverage and you may discover he starts 
making decisions more to your liking.

MDC



chris wrote:
> 
> If they knew, would they care?  In the desktop, I don't think so. 
> Ludovic is right in the disposability of programmers.  Especially today.
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Stephen Leake]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:

> Rather than complain about "stupid management" we ought to be helping
> them solve their problems. If Ada had much more capability and
> widespread use, then the manager has substantially less risk in going
> that route. Give the poor guy something he can *trust* will be around,
> supported, low cost and high leverage and you may discover he starts
> making decisions more to your liking.

In my field, the time it takes to learn Ada is quite small compared to
the time it takes to learn how to write useful programs. The later
involves data structures, real-time scheduling, the physics of
actuators and sensors, and control algorithms. None of those things
are "main stream" :).

And yet the managers still say "we can't teach people new programming
languages". 

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: why ada is so unpopular ?

[Marin David Condic]

Been there. Done that. Got the T-Shirt. You're right that in lots of 
domains, it takes you more time to learn the domain than to learn the 
language. Managers love to hire guys who already have experience in the 
domain for exactly that reason.

But that doesn't really address the issue that a manager has when 
choosing a language. Training people is *part* of the cost, but by no 
means all of it. If you're building things using sensors and actuators 
and control algorithms like I am, then you're probably talking about 
very long-lived systems that are extremely expensive to verify. 
Especially in some environment like that, a manager doesn't want to be 
sitting on top of a dead-end language. If it becomes mostly non-existant 
in ten years and his control has to live for another 30 years, he is 
most eggregiously sexually penetrated when he has to switch to something 
else in mid-project.

I'll reiterate: Give the poor manager something he can have some 
confidence in and believe it will solve his problems and maybe he'll 
start making the decisions you want him to make. He lives or dies by 
things like cost, schedule, time-to-market, risk reduction, etc. 
Selecting some niche language with an uncertain future, a lack of 
industry support, a poverty of tools/libraries (compared to other 
choices) and a profound disinterest on the part of most of the available 
programmers out there just doesn't look like a career-enhancing move. 
Fix that and maybe he'll show more interest in the language.

MDC

Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> In my field, the time it takes to learn Ada is quite small compared to
> the time it takes to learn how to write useful programs. The later
> involves data structures, real-time scheduling, the physics of
> actuators and sensors, and control algorithms. None of those things
> are "main stream" :).
> 
> And yet the managers still say "we can't teach people new programming
> languages". 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================