Re: Why so hard to come up with a simple embedded Ada system?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:06:31 -0700 (PDT), MRE wrote:

> On 17 Jul., 11:46, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> But you (education) have time, resources and continuity we (mid-sized
>> industry) cannot even dream of.
> 
> No, I don't. I am not quite sure where those nice job descriptions for profs come
> from. Every time I read one of those (lots of free time, pursuing their hobbies,
> making huge amounts of money...) I go: "yes, I want one of those jobs,
> why don't I have it?".
> Reality looks quite different. And: Software development tools ARE NOT MY JOB!

Maybe, it is a part of the process. Niklaus Wirth, to name just one, was a
prof and an author and developer of so many programming languages. Was any
notable programming language designed as a part of some managed business
project? Even awful C was developed because guys were on the loose. If
there were a manager around, we would not enjoy it.

> I can use good ole C for most of what I am doing, so why would my dean give
> me money to do some work on / in Ada?

Do you need them? I didn't mean some project. I mean an activity.

> I have not published anything about language
> design, compiler design or any related field, so neither the state, nor the federal
> government nor the European Community is going to fork money my way to develop a couple
> of nice FREE cross compilers.

You publish about the language applied to the problems from your domain.
Nobody is doing any fundamental or semi-fundamental research in this field
anyway.

> Have you ever taken a look at what the state of the art is in CS as compared to
> state of the practice?

Catastrophic vs. disastrous. What makes you believe that industry is any
better? After all the engineers are produced by universities. They don't
get much better as they age. I mean if somebody was unable to understand
anything about software design during 5 years of education, then the
chances that he will do later are minimal. Industry adds time pressure,
teaches cynicism, tricks and wrong habits. We take boys with shiny eyes and
make dull working horses out of them.

> Why do we have all these nice papers circulating, telling us
> how easy it is to develop software -using this or that lanugage, method etc.-
> when we are still using a 40+ years language like C as a standard?

Not because industry guys are writing them. We do business proposals,
meeting minutes, responses to enraged customers etc.

> If you wait for universities to drive software-technology, then you'll get a lot
> of quantum-leaps, i.e. you'll most probably not like the direction.

Yes. But there is at least some competition between universities, which
does not exist in the software industry, except for maybe the gaming one.
There is no software market, how do you want to get whatever progress
without market?

> Research goes
> where the money is. Pure research in the technical fields -among them
> CS- has become extremely rare.

Agreed. But mid-sized industry is incapable and unwilling to do any
research. And the research done by big companies is better not to have at
all. No need to name examples known to everybody.

Why a bunch of unorganized amateurs is capable to challenge software
industry? Because they are good? No, because industry is so bad.

> I've been in the "industry" for quite some time and know how the blokes in the
> avionics business work. I've been working for people for started a new project in C
> because the Ada cross-compiler cost twice as much as the one for C (Productivity? Never
> heard that this will depend on the progrmaming language!). I've watched
> tool vendors try to sell the newest fad (my favourite here being Real- Time "Java"
> for safety-critical systems!) and then go down the drain in ever tightening spirals.
> Why are there so many C compiler vendors out there as opposed to a very small (and
> declining) number of Ada vendors? Because of the universities not doing research?
> I don't think so!

You adequately described what is going on in the industry. This is how it
works and this is how it will. You just don't get anything meaningful from
us, see the Peter Principle.

> It's the users, the companies that make money by buying tools and selling software
> that have the leverage.

Nope, because there is no market. And each new segment where a market could
grow is burned down within 2-5 years, one by one. It is a political and
social problem, nothing can be done about it. There exist only universities
and free software movement where freedom lives. I don't believe in the
latter.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de