Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >> >I must confess that this is unimaginable for me - how any programming language
> >> >can DEFINE general notion of software.
> >>
> >> Any language defines the subject of talking.
> >
> >A loud shot, but a miss - because we don't (and can't) talk about general
> >notion of software in Ada.
>
> How so?

Oh, I understand - you mean that we can say anything in Ada using Ada's String
literals. Yes, we can, but Ada this method does not establish any real
connection between Ada language and the contents of that talk.

> >> any programming language, Ada, C++, etc define, form,
> >> influence the notion of software.
> >
> >It does not define or form, but at most contribute something to those notion.
>
> I do not see any difference.

Well, does one person's will define or form the politics of the country?
I suppose you'll agree that this happen sometimes, but very rarely; and that
most common case is that persons contribute more to that, some less. and
most of citizens of the country contribute very little to that. Is it correct
to say that such a person, who contribute very little to that, defines or
forms politics of the country?

> You are mixing popularity, influencing, contribution, all goes into
> one cauldron. 

It is quite common and respectable methodology - to mix differences in X, Y
and Z coordinates of two objects in some mystical formula for obtaning the
distance between them, isn't it?

> >And the same goes all the way with Ada. Just try to increase your speed and
> >run carelessly with the banner "I'm creating software!" in your hand - you'll
> >immediatiately meet various obstacles and annoyances, which you'll never meet
> >in C and you'll never meet major part of them in C++.
>
> You will, just at some later stage of development.

This is very important - at some later stage. It may be very bad for the
project schedule and even for the released product, but still it is perceived
as a good thing by many programmers. And they have their reasons - it may be
simply intolerable to sit in the dark or desperately fighting with surrounding
hostile obstacles for too long; there is a need to move somewhere for taking
a breath. Not mentioning that "later" may never happen - either for the whole
project or for this particular individual.

> Actually all your arguments are against the modern notion of software
> which is more concentrated on re-use, than new design. For very
> obvious reasons of course, there are not enough people on earth to
> program all that will be needed in the following 50 years, if things
> will go as they do.

> Did you participate a medium-sized project in C++ or Basic?

I don't know what you mean by "medium-sized", but I think I was... I think
that happened twice. One time it was typical outsourcing, and it was an awful
mess. Another case was much better, but I can't say that I was really
"participating" there - my role in the project was very isolated and
temporary, and I had only one contact person. All other C+= projects in which
I participate(d) were (and are) rather small, although in some cases long
enough.

As for Basic - no, never, and I even can't imagine such a horrible thing -
a mid-sized project in Basic -;)

> >> controlling the nuclear reactor 30 miles away,
> >
> >Interesting, how far you think is the Sosnovyi Bor power plant with 4 big
> >nuclear reactors from south-east of Saint-Petersburg(Russia) where I live?
>
> Not much far, right?

Yes. Probably you can find a map in the Net, if you become interested in exact
distance.

> >I can tell you that I still don't see too much danger from it - mostly because
> >there are still enough scientific power in nearby institutes.
>
> Because it is not directly controlled by software. Yet.

Well, I hope that physists will maintain old principle of physics laboratories:
there are no computers, there are devices. All devices must work properly and
reliably, must be checked, maintained etc. There are relatively simple and
there are relatively complex devices, but all they are just devices, and no
one of them is sacred in any way. Workings of all devices must be understood
in full detail, there can't be any gaps, secrets or mystique.

Certainly, there always was and will be pressure for violating this principle.
So there always was and will be fighting for it, sometimes rather fierce
fighting. And morale of physists (as I always understood it, by inheritance...
at least morale Soviet physists of previous generations) permits and even
requires use of any methods, rigid or flexible, and any means, including
forgery, bribery etc. for the defense of this principle.

> >> managing the air bag in your car.
>
> It is a plastic pillow inflated when car collides with an obstacle. It
> is around for many years.

Well, I understand now. Whether it is funny or not, but I still never seen
that thing, although I remember that I was thinking about such thing in my
childhood.

> A recent idea is to replace its simple
> sensor by a computer controlled system which will detect crashes
> before they happen. In the effect air bags will be inflated by
> software. There are also other interesting innovations: brake-by-wire,
> stir-by-wire, which names need not to be explained. Enjoy!

Well, it isn't simple to estimate the balance of probable consequences of that
things, including a redistribution of negative consequences between guilty and
innocent parties.

By the way, I think that a free and open-source emulator of a generic car,
which, in particular, includes all those devices, would be very good thing.
And for those who seek so-called "killer application", I'd like to say that
within this application Ada can really shine.



Alexander Kopilovich                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia