Re: More Uniform Ada libraries (was: Proving Correctness)

["nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3149 bytes --]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> a �crit dans
le message news: 9krkfa$g12$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying "I think having
some
> big collection of utility code tacked on to a language compiler is
important
> for my development business. I further think it is important that this
> library of utility code be (at least *mostly*) standard so that I can move
> from one vendor to another and not lose my investment in this library. If
> some substantial portion of Ada vendors do *not* provide some collection
of
> utilities and some substantial portion of C++ venders *do* provide some
> collection of utilities, I am more apt to select C++ for my next
development
> effort."
>
> If that is close to reflecting your opinion, I would certainly understand
> the sentiment. How to standardize a set of utilities and where they should
> come from and so on isn't necessarily the issue. If a language provides
more
> utility code with (most) distributions, then I gain a lot of leverage by
> choosing that language. If that is what other languages are providing and
it
> is gaining them adherents, perhaps Ada (as a collective effort) needs to
> consider how to do the same.
>

Shortly said :
- We need Ada compilers suitable for us
- We will have them only if the number of Ada users with our concerns is
high enough.
- I don't think this number will be high enough with the current situation
concerning portable and standard Ada libraries.

More precisely, I think you got it right for companies starting today with
Ada language on our market.
This is slightly different for our specific situation.
We are used to develop our own Ada libraries
At the very beginning we worked on graphical applications for DOS platform
and almost no Ada library was available for our needs.
Now, when we need external libraries, we usually buy C commercial libraries
and import them in Ada.
The reason is that the libraries we need simply don't exist in Ada, while
excellent ones are available in C.

As far as we are concerned, we don't really need the kind of Ada standard
libraries we are talking about.
Because we know how to develop them, or import them from other languages.
But this has a cost, and anyway we are still dependant of the availability
of Ada compilers suitable for what we do.

The question is to know if compilers suitable for us will be available in
the future.
Nowadays, I don't believe that software companies will use Ada to develop
the kind of software we develop, if Ada standard libraries are not
available.
Newcomers to Ada won't accept what we accept, because having no Ada
background, it will be easier and cheaper for them to develop in C, C++ or
Java, than to be tied to either ACT or Aonix or Rational, or spend their
time writing endless pragmas import.
More than that, when you want to use subcontractors, you'd much better be
looking for subcontrators with C, C++ or Java knowledge, than Ada knowledge.

If in the end, we are too few companies with the kind of requirements we
have, no Ada compiler will be suitable for us.
That's our main concern.