Re: NOACE- End of the road for Ada?

["Alexander E. Kopilovich" <aek@VB1162.spb.edu>]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Well, there you have to take a look around you to see what people are 
> using in a problem domain to help them get to an end product.

Here you assume that everyone who has prudent interest in aiding Ada can see
in one's neighbourhood some software development using Ada in some problem
domain.

This is wrong assumption. Although it is "almost correct" numerically, it is
still fundamentally wrong. And note, that exactly this assumption is a major
difference between Ada world and the worlds of other well-known languages.

> In my current class of applications, one of the big tools is Simulink. 
> That's just one example since we're still talking about embedded systems 
> and there are a whole slew of things that go into that sort of 
> development. But its stuff like that where Ada often comes up short - or 
> at best a weak "Me Too!!!" player.

OK, Simulink. If I understand it properly, Simulink is a package that comes
with MatLab (or there is another Simulink?). Search in Google quickly shows
that there are some products, which support Ada with Simulink (at least those
from universities). Probably you know or even use those products, and came to
conclusion that they all are deficient comparing with Simulink support tools
for C++. 

So how can those deficiences be described generally/summarily ? Are they
buggy, incomplete, poorly documented ? Or they are fundamentally inferior,
being essentially "Ada tools for Simulink" instead of "Simulink tools for
Ada" ?