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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular? References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <20070123211651.c0d43695.tero.koskinen@iki.fi> <87zm89tpk7.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4q4pqgmdwo.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1169719988.972296.121430@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <4iauh.1157694$084.1040745@attbi_s22> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:57:48 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BMO2bDqhx0uuh8e0BecxNcQ8ZEo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.211.238 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1170024782 88.72.211.238 (28 Jan 2007 23:53:02 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8665 Date: 2007-01-28T23:57:48+01:00 List-Id: writes: > "Markus E Leypold" > wrote in message > >> >> I'm a bit surprised, actually. I would have thought Pascal simpler to >> learn. >> > It depends on what you want students to learn. At an equivalent > level to Pascal, Ada is easier to learn primarily due to its improved > consistency of syntax. OK. I never had much issues with the Pascal syntax, but than my memory might be failing too. > At the more advanced level, it is more difficult > because of the difference in design issues. > > Ease of learning should not an important factor when considering the > adoption of a programming language. It wasn't me that brought that topic into the discussion. I only commented as an aside that this finding -- quoted by J R Carter -- surprises me. > Python is amazingly easy to learn. So is Ruby. Both are excellent > languages. I like them both. Neither is the right choice for > safety-critical embedded systems. No, certainly not. But my impression was not that we are discussing "How come Ada isn't more popular for safety critical embedded system?" which would be a really small scope indeed, but more "How come Ada isn't more popular?". Add to that that Ada was originally proposed/designed to be a general "systems programming language", so restricting the discussion to "safety-critical embedded systems" would seem, at least to me, to ditch the issue. But never mind. If the community could please come forward and say: Yes Ada is the best language ever (but we are talking ONLY about safety critical systems), I'd be prepared to accept that statement :-). But then understand 2 things: - We shouldn't teach general programming in a fringe language at University. - The guy asking for the Ada translation of a C algorithm wrote a book about "embedded programming". He didn't say "safety critical". So the mini-outrage that somebody daring to write about embedded programming doesn't know Ada was quite uncalled for, wasn't it. :-). So what will it be ...? > C++ is not easy to learn. To do C++ safely is really hard to learn. In > this case, it is easier to learn how to safe programming in Ada than in > C++. I fully agree with that sentiment (controlling memory is especially difficult). But usually projects that use C++ for embedded programming seem only to use a really limited subset, often down to just using name spaces only because they make modularization a bit easier. >> Most of the time C++ and Ada are both taught badly. That can make Bot. Indeed. > them hard to learn. The most frequently overlooked dimension of Ada > that is misunderstood by those who try to teach it is the scope and > visibility rules. Yet that, not strong typing, is at the heart of the design > of the language. It is sad that most instructors who try to teach Ada > don't understand those rules well enough to show how important they > are to being a good Ada programmer/designer. > > With Ada, once a someone understands Chapter Eight of the ALRM, the > rest of the language issues fall into place quite easily. Right. Regards -- Markus (who probably still has not understood everything about Ada :-)