From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-07 22:10:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!teaser.fr!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:09:21 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1062997817 57012 137.194.161.2 (8 Sep 2003 05:10:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 05:10:17 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Robert I. Eachus'" , Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 In-Reply-To: <3F5B8084.5080705@attbi.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcN1kSH7ehT+SasCTh6JbxpQWwjbMQANHHxw X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42261 Date: 2003-09-07T22:09:21-07:00 I am presently using Martin Carlisle's A# which employs the same ECMA code base as the Microsoft .Net products. The only problem that I have had is that Martin' .Net tools only work when the C++ programmer does builds his OCX, Active X or DLL according to Microsoft's specifications. I now have two very important software products where this has not occurred. A major problem with Ada is that the GNU marketing model does not encourage vendors to support products like A#. Parenthetically, C# is closer to Objective C than Java and produces usable code. As for Ada, we are now in the same state as SGML was four years ago. After XML was derived from SGML, all hell has broken loose. SPARK gives us something to hype! All Ada needs are a few capable capitalists and marketing people. Simple classic rule of business, if a product stops selling, change its name, give it a face lift and then do a marketing blitz. Bob Leif Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. Email rleif@rleif.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert I. Eachus [mailto:rieachus@attbi.com] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:02 PM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Russ wrote: > I remember Java interfaces only vaguely. Are you telling me that they > do everything that Ada spec files do, and that they do it every bit as > well, with no disadvantages? If so, then I am impressed. But that's a > big "if". I would certainly be interested in other opinions here too. There is a proposal for Ada 200X to add interfaces to Ada. It has been extensively worked, and will almost surely be added. Why? Because intefaces are different from Ada generics and solve other problems. In particular adding interfaces to Ada allows derived types where the type inherits one parent type and adds one or more interfaces. The user must then provide explicitly declared subprograms to match any subprograms in the interfaces that are not provided by the parent type. (In the proposal you can inherit from only interfaces as well. But directly inheriting from only one interface is not that interesting a case.) Back to the original question, I can remember when the challenge to Ada was Smalltalk. Then fifth generation languages like Prolog, then C++, then Java. Now it is C#. Do you see a pattern here? There are programmers who NEED to use whatever the latest new thing is, and won't let considerations like long term maintenance get in their way. (For those who care about using .NET, I see it as orthogonal to using Ada. C#, as far as I am concerned is a restricted subset of C++ that Microsoft provides a .NET enabled compiler for. You can, and for some projects you must, compile some modules outside the C# environment. Could someone provide a .NET enabled compiler for Ada? Sure. Will anyone do so? I don't think so. As long as .NET is seen as a Microsoft Windows only environment, the only advantage to having an Ada .NET compiler is to run the same executables on x86 and IA-64 hardware. But as far as I can see, Itanium2 is succeeding only in the heavy number crunching environment where most users will want as much optimization as possible. (Someday there may be a .NET compiler that is that good. I don't expect to live that long--and I expect to live a long time.) As for x86-64/AMD64, whichever you want to call it, if the operating system supports 64-bit mode, it also supports running mixed 32-bit and 64-bit executables simultaneously and with no extra overhead. Well, technically Microsoft has chosen to support 32-bit executables by providing a (thin) interface to expand 32-bit OS calls to 64-bit addresses on call and return, while Linux provides both "native" 32-bit and 64-bit OS interfaces. However, we are talking a few "extra" instructions per call in WoW-64 to allow the (faster) 64-bit implementation of the OS to be used. It is not clear yet which approach is better, but the difference is in the 1% of execution time range. And both are faster on average than running on a 32-bit OS. So I see C# and .NET as a solution to a problem that will never occur. (Migrating Windows users to IA-64.) -- Robert I. Eachus "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, President of France "As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh