ADA made me hate programming

ADA made me hate programming

[mahdert]

When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
major to mech eng..

Now, after many years, I started to revisit ADA and I seem to catch on
to it.. but I feel (i know) its mostly due to my own experience and
maturity level..

So, I have to ask your opinion.. DO you think that the push for
universities to use ADA is a big conspiracy among academicians to kill
the passion of comp. sci in young students who would like to become
software engineers???? I do not see any other reason why..

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

On 06/29/2010 10:23 PM, mahdert wrote:
> When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> major to mech eng..

In order to respond meaningfully to your post, we need to know which ADA you 
were exposed to that had such an effect on you. Was it American Dental 
Association or Americans with Disabilities Act?

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Blessed is just about anyone with a vested interest in the status quo."
Monty Python's Life of Brian
73

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[mahdert]

On Jun 30, 1:33 am, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org> wrote:
> On 06/29/2010 10:23 PM, mahdert wrote:
>
> > When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> > major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> > was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> > and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> > major to mech eng..
>
> In order to respond meaningfully to your post, we need to know which ADA you
> were exposed to that had such an effect on you. Was it American Dental
> Association or Americans with Disabilities Act?
>
> --
> Jeff Carter
> "Blessed is just about anyone with a vested interest in the status quo."
> Monty Python's Life of Brian
> 73

LOL.. it was GNAT ADA 95..

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <8f469661-370c-4484-82d8-f1b365455e0f@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, mahdert <mahdert@gmail.com> writes:
>When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
>major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
>was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
>and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
>major to mech eng..
>
>Now, after many years, I started to revisit ADA and I seem to catch on
>to it.. but I feel (i know) its mostly due to my own experience and
>maturity level..
>
>So, I have to ask your opinion.. DO you think that the push for
>universities to use ADA is a big conspiracy among academicians to kill
>the passion of comp. sci in young students who would like to become
>software engineers???? I do not see any other reason why..
>

The Ada lang. aids the programmer to become a better programmer. But that 
means that the programmer must be willing to alter their bad habits and ideas 
on programming to a more pure and structured way of programming.  After 
which even debugging is a breeze compared to other languages.

The big conspiracy among academicians is pushing C++ and other languages,
were bad habits can become a cancer to the programmer/maintainers of any 
software package.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Ludovic Brenta]

mahdert wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> major to mech eng..
>
> Now, after many years, I started to revisit ADA and I seem to catch on
> to it.. but I feel (i know) its mostly due to my own experience and
> maturity level..
>
> So, I have to ask your opinion.. DO you think that the push for
> universities to use ADA is a big conspiracy among academicians to kill
> the passion of comp. sci in young students who would like to become
> software engineers???? I do not see any other reason why..

Sloppy programmers avoid Ada, therefore Ada helps avoid sloppy
programmers.

The fact that you mention your own maturity in your post says a lot.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[tonyg]

On 30 June, 08:00, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> mahdert wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>
> > When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> > major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> > was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> > and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> > major to mech eng..
>
> > Now, after many years, I started to revisit ADA and I seem to catch on
> > to it.. but I feel (i know) its mostly due to my own experience and
> > maturity level..
>
> > So, I have to ask your opinion.. DO you think that the push for
> > universities to use ADA is a big conspiracy among academicians to kill
> > the passion of comp. sci in young students who would like to become
> > software engineers???? I do not see any other reason why..
>
> Sloppy programmers avoid Ada, therefore Ada helps avoid sloppy
> programmers.
>
> The fact that you mention your own maturity in your post says a lot.
>
> --
> Ludovic Brenta.

You should think yourself lucky we had three major languages (I won't
say taught) we were told to use our projects with

1) ML
2) 68000 assembly
3) Ada

so most of us loved Ada

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Gautier write-only]

On 30 Jun., 07:23, mahdert <mahd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> major to mech eng..

So perhaps you made a very wise decision due to this course.
If you had compile-time errors with Ada, it was because you had bugs
and bugs tend to be detected more at compile-time with Ada. As a
reward, your programs tend to function earlier correctly once they are
compiled. Kind of each time you lose 10 minutes fighting with the
compiler, you gain 1 hour not fighting with the debugger. A good deal
in the end, but as you say later, it requires some maturity to catch
it.

> Now, after many years, I started to revisit ADA and I seem to catch on
> to it.. but I feel (i know) its mostly due to my own experience and
> maturity level..

> So, I have to ask your opinion.. DO you think that the push for
> universities to use ADA is a big conspiracy among academicians to kill
> the passion of comp. sci in young students who would like to become
> software engineers???? I do not see any other reason why..

As far as can see, for the last 20 years universities are rather
pushing C and the like, and perhaps precisely because they want to
keep their students at the same level they had when entering (which
can make a short-term sense, economically, for universities).
______________________________________________________________
Gautier's Ada programming -- http://gautiersblog.blogspot.com/

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Pascal Obry]

Dmitry,

> 3. CS students with majors in applied mathematics are incapable to design
> software in whatever language. I'm sorry, but have to say this. (:-))

Don't be sorry, I concur 100%...

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|    http://www.obry.net  -  http://v2p.fr.eu.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

mahdert expounded in
news:1c6d350c-e5f4-48a2-b183-7fefe7e207dc@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: 

> On Jun 30, 1:33�am, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
> <spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>> On 06/29/2010 10:23 PM, mahdert wrote:
>>
>> > When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
>> > major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you
>> > I was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing
>> > with ADA and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to
>> > change my major to mech eng..
>>
>> In order to respond meaningfully to your post, we need to know which
>> ADA 
> you
>> were exposed to that had such an effect on you. Was it American
>> Dental Association or Americans with Disabilities Act?
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Carter
>> "Blessed is just about anyone with a vested interest in the status
>> quo." Monty Python's Life of Brian
>> 73
> 
> LOL.. it was GNAT ADA 95..

I think you missed the point-- it is "Ada", not "ADA". 

Perhaps your computer science program started you off 
on the wrong foot ;-)

Warren

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Warren]

Gautier write-only expounded in news:98aa58b3-50fc-418d-9f72-
524b5a23c89d@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

> On 30 Jun., 07:23, mahdert <mahd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
>> major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
>> was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
>> and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
>> major to mech eng..
..
> If you had compile-time errors with Ada, it was because you had bugs
> and bugs tend to be detected more at compile-time with Ada. As a
> reward, your programs tend to function earlier correctly once they are
> compiled. Kind of each time you lose 10 minutes fighting with the
> compiler, you gain 1 hour not fighting with the debugger. A good deal
> in the end, but as you say later, it requires some maturity to catch
> it.

I remember this when I was young. For some reason, students 
get real hung up on compile time errors.  It's like they are
horses bouncing around inside the gate, waiting for the door
to open. 

They barely even read the error messages and simply 
take in the one fact "error in line x". Not which kind of 
error or any level of detail. They simply want to know the
quick answer for "getting past the error".  They don't want
to know why it is an error, so long as they can "fix it",
and fix it now ("my assignment is due"). In otherwords,
the compiler is holding them back.

This rush to successfully compile has probably discouraged
many people. Yet as point out above, this is good in that
it saves you much debugging, which is usually much more 
difficult.

Is the problem that debugging is more fun than fixing compile
time errors? There must be phsycological reasons.

Maybe students of Ada are best served by educating them on
this issue before they get too involved in using the compiler.  
To read the error(s) carefully and to understand the nature
of the problems being exposed.  It's like teaching unix
students how to read "man pages" and how to read between
the lines (as it was often necessary to do). 

Then perhaps they won't bounce around in the gate so much 
if they are taught to be more patient. Education might 
avoid the frantic "what do I need to change to
make the compiler like my code" frenzy.  

The compiler is your friend- only except when it 
presents a 'bug box'. ;-)

Warren

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[George Orwell]

> On 06/29/2010 10:23 PM, mahdert wrote:
> > When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> > major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> > was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> > and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> > major to mech eng..

And it was a good thing, indeed. If you can't figure out how to code well
enough to get past Ada's compile-time errors, it's a pretty strong proof
you're not cut out for a job in programming (and I shudder to think of what
kind of machines or bridges you'll design) and also not surprised you like
C++ which will do what you said and not what you meant, all without letting
you know.

(I didn't mean to quote Jeffrey's post, but I didn't see the OP.)

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
                  https://www.mixmaster.it

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Colin Paul Gloster]

I am replying at 18:51:23 UTC on June 30th, 2010 to a post with the
bogus header:
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:46 +0200
so please improve the timestamping mechanism.

Dmitry A. Kazakov sent:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                    |
|                                                                         |
|[..]                                                                     |
|3. CS students with majors in applied mathematics are incapable to design|
|software in whatever language. I'm sorry, but have to say this. (:-))"   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I do not understand.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 6/29/2010 11:40 PM, anon@att.net wrote:

>
> The big conspiracy among academicians is pushing C++ and other languages,
> were bad habits can become a cancer to the programmer/maintainers of any
> software package.

I think the choice of CS teaching languages went something like this:

PLI/SNOBOL -- the dark ages ?

Fortran -- late 70's ?

Pascal/Ada/Module2/  80's. The golden age (algorithms+data 
structures=programs)

C/lisp  80's-early 90's ?

C++ 90's - early 2000's ?

Java late 90's/middle 2000's ?

Python now ?

HTML5/JavaScript -- 2010's and for the rest of the 21 century :)


--Nasser

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:54:10 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> I am replying at 18:51:23 UTC on June 30th, 2010 to a post with the
> bogus header:
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:46 +0200

Hmm, the header is correct +0200 = +02:00 = 2h 0m = CEST (Central European
Summer Time)

> Dmitry A. Kazakov sent:

>|3. CS students with majors in applied mathematics are incapable to design|
>|software in whatever language. I'm sorry, but have to say this. (:-))"   |
> 
> I do not understand.

Neither do I. It is a puzzling psychological phenomenon. Only professional
mathematicians can compete them. I have several books on numeric methods
and statistics with source code attached, usually in FORTRAN. It is
horrifying. Many scientific papers I had time to time to review contained
code samples. I guess they were intended to illustrate some point,
unfortunately absolutely in vain, because even Champollion were he still
alive, would be unable to decipher these. (:-))

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

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Kulin Remailer]

> I remember this when I was young. For some reason, students 
> get real hung up on compile time errors.  It's like they are
> horses bouncing around inside the gate, waiting for the door
> to open. 

That was the questionable thinking behind a hilarious variant of PL/I
called PL/C, Cornell University's PL/I compiler. Students just want their
programs to compile and run, don't bother them with details like whether
it's correct or not. Not a good assumption but...it was enough for somebody
or some group of people to put out a pretty interesting compiler and get it
out there in academia, circa late 70s early 80s timeframe.

The purpose of PL/C was to take almost any input and hammer it until it
looked like a PL/I program, compile it, and generate an executable from
it. It certainly may not do what you intended, but by george, the damn
thing will almost always start running. What happens next...nobody knows. 

It was hysterical to look closely at the diagnostics. I don't have a
listing handy but I remember it would be something like

Error on line ... (note the syntax error)
PL/C uses ....    (what PL/C replaced your erroneous statement with)

If I had a dime for every cup of coffee that went out my nose working with
that compiler! Actually it could have been a very interesting aspect of AI
if they had intentions in that direction but I don't think it went any
further and I haven't seen anything like it since.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Phil Clayton]

On Jun 30, 9:36 am, tonyg <tonytheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> You should think yourself lucky we had three major languages (I won't
> say taught) we were told to use our projects with
>
> 1) ML
> 2) 68000 assembly
> 3) Ada
>
> so most of us loved Ada

ML is probably more extreme in terms of compile time errors - I can
see that some type errors would be horrendous for a novice.  However,
having had the opportunity to spend the best part of 10 years
developing tools in ML (SML) to analyze Ada programs, I count myself
incredibly fortunate!

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Peter C. Chapin]

On 2010-06-30 13:05, Warren wrote:

> They barely even read the error messages and simply 
> take in the one fact "error in line x". Not which kind of 
> error or any level of detail. They simply want to know the
> quick answer for "getting past the error".  They don't want
> to know why it is an error, so long as they can "fix it",
> and fix it now ("my assignment is due"). In otherwords,
> the compiler is holding them back.

My students are often like this as well. In fact, I notice they hardly
ever read any error messages regardless of the source. If an error
message box pops up in some application many of my students will dismiss
it at once automatically. It's almost like a reflex action. If they are
in the process of asking me for help the conversation goes something
like this:

Me: "So what did that error message say?"

Student: "I have no idea."

Me: "You should probably at least read those messages before saying you
are stuck."

It can be frustrating.

All that said, I do think that many novice programmer's find compiler
error messages baffling and largely unhelpful. The part that says "error
on line xx" they understand. The part that says something like, "no
suitable subprograms found to resolve yyy. Candidates are..." can be
hard for a complete beginner to digest. They don't really understand
what the message means so they look at line xx and hope for a flash of
insight. Obviously as an educator it's my role to help them learn what
such messages mean, but it takes time and it isn't always easy.

I will say GNAT has rather good error messages overall. I have had more
than one student tell me that he/she found GNAT error messages better
than "any other compiler I've used" (meaning g++).

Peter

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Kulin Remailer]

Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> wrote:

> I am replying at 18:51:23 UTC on June 30th, 2010 to a post with the
> bogus header:
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:46 +0200
> so please improve the timestamping mechanism.

There's nothing wrong with his time stamp, he can always accuse you of
misquoting him since by the time you reply, he hasn't said anything yet.

;-)

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[starwars]

> I think the choice of CS teaching languages went something like this:
> 
> PLI/SNOBOL -- the dark ages ?

No, that was already late in the game. FORTRAN came out in 1957, I think
COBOL came in 1959. Those two languages dominated CS curriculum in business
and mathematics areas for many years.

Although PL/I came out in 1963, FORTRAN and COBOL were already entrenched
in production and education so not many schools taught it although
compilers were certainly available from IBM.

SNOBOL was a niche language (and one I happen to like alot) but was also
not widely taught. Interesting language but not really great for teaching
or production, so not much of a player.

I don't know about the rest of your list but aside from your timing on
Pascal (may Wirth burn in hell) I think most of the rest of the list is
off.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Wilson]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:23:37 -0400, mahdert <mahdert@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> major to mech eng..
>
> Now, after many years, I started to revisit ADA and I seem to catch on
> to it.. but I feel (i know) its mostly due to my own experience and
> maturity level..
>
> So, I have to ask your opinion.. DO you think that the push for
> universities to use ADA is a big conspiracy among academicians to kill
> the passion of comp. sci in young students who would like to become
> software engineers???? I do not see any other reason why..
>



-- 


Thank you for your comments.  I found your them very interesting. (and  
thought provoking.)  I was responsible for teaching Ada to beginning  
students over a period of about ten years.  We used R&R Ada for the first  
course and Gnat for later courses.  On the whole, at the end of the first  
course (one semester), the average student was writing correct, 3-400 line  
programs using up to 5 or 6 subprograms.  Almost all of the programs were  
correct the first time they went through the compiler with no errors.

Over the years I have taught the same course in assembler (back in the  
1950s), various versions of Fortran, Cobol, Basic, Pascal, Algol, and  
PL/I.  (As you might have guessed, I was arround for a long time and still  
loved teaching beginners.)  Ada was by far and away the easiest language  
to teach and the students learnt the most.

If Ada was so great, why did the school change to C++?  Student demand.   
All the job openings wanted C++, not Ada.  When all is said and done,  
schools ofter what students want.  (Although one former student did tell  
lme that her employer found it almost impossible to change people who had  
started with C++ into Ada programers.  Rather than insist on Ada  
experience, the employer changed all its programming to C++!  Some days  
you can't win.)

I wish all programming managers would develop your maturity.  God knows,  
we need it.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <i0g4lk$qon$1@speranza.aioe.org>, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> writes:
>On 6/29/2010 11:40 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
>
>>
>> The big conspiracy among academicians is pushing C++ and other languages,
>> were bad habits can become a cancer to the programmer/maintainers of any
>> software package.
>
>I think the choice of CS teaching languages went something like this:
>
>PLI/SNOBOL -- the dark ages ?
>
>Fortran -- late 70's ?
>
>Pascal/Ada/Module2/  80's. The golden age (algorithms+data 
>structures=programs)
>
>C/lisp  80's-early 90's ?
>
>C++ 90's - early 2000's ?
>
>Java late 90's/middle 2000's ?
>
>Python now ?
>
>HTML5/JavaScript -- 2010's and for the rest of the 21 century :)
>
>
>--Nasser
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your Timeline is a off a bit.

Assembly --  From the Beginning .. To the Future
             Not pushed! After higher-level lang came around

Cobol/Fortran/Algol/Lisp -- late 50s .. late 80s
                            All were replace by C/C++ in the 80/90s
                            Note: Ada designer have stated that
                            Fortran was the "successful language"

PLI -- 60s, programmers and companies rebeled, they prefer to use 
            the specific language such as Fortran or Cobol 
            instead of learning and using PLI. So, schools followed the 
            companies and mostly stayed away from PLI.

Pascal/Module2 -- Mid to late 70s ... mid 90s 
                  Pascal was design to teach programming
                  Replace by C/C++ in 80/90s

APL/B/BCPL -- from late 50s .. late 70s 
                   replaced with  "C" aka newer version.
C/C++/D    -- from 74 .. Now.  
           -- "D" is the newest version replaces C and C++
              "C++" is wide spread in all classes. C/C++ slowly 
              replace all other older lang "Cobol" and "Fortran" 
              in clasees.
              Also, due to fact that these lang are based on "APL" 
              it makes the set, one of the OLDEST lang around.
              This 50+ year lang set should of died a few years ago.
            

Ada   83 .. 98  -- only taught in gov't sponsor classes. Teacher 
                   had to be certified in Ada before 98.
      After 98  -- problem is, not enough teachers that know Ada


Languages that are for net and have little to no interest to main 
stream programers that want to deal with the native CPU.

  Java --  90's .. now -- Sun's internet J-Code language that 
                          is somewhat secure and portable but 
                          altered to much for any lasting code.

  Only Web designers are into:    
       HTML/JavaScript/Python
               These are just a passing though for the movement
               and will be replace by some kind GUI web lang. All 
               three will be out the door by 2016.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:54:10 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
>
>> I am replying at 18:51:23 UTC on June 30th, 2010 to a post with the
>> bogus header:
>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:46 +0200
>
> Hmm, the header is correct +0200 = +02:00 = 2h 0m = CEST (Central European
> Summer Time)

I think it's the "Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:46" he's complaining about!

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Lucretia]

On Jun 30, 9:36 am, tonyg <tonytheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> You should think yourself lucky we had three major languages (I won't
> say taught) we were told to use our projects with
>
> 1) ML
> 2) 68000 assembly
> 3) Ada
>
> so most of us loved Ada

Some of us loved m68k, especially on the Amiga :D

Luke.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On a true July 1st, 2010, Simon Wright sent:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|""Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:                    |
|                                                                            |
|> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:54:10 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:             |
|>                                                                           |
|>> I am replying at 18:51:23 UTC on June 30th, 2010 to a post with the      |
|>> bogus header:                                                            |
|>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:46 +0200                                     |
|>                                                                           |
|> Hmm, the header is correct +0200 = +02:00 = 2h 0m = CEST (Central European|
|> Summer Time)                                                              |
|                                                                            |
|I think it's the "Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:46" he's complaining about!"        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Affirmative. Even in the C.E.S.T. timezone, July had not begun by the
time Dmitry A. Kazakov posted.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, anon@anon.org alleged:

|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                |
|                                                                     |
|APL/B/BCPL -- from late 50s .. late 70s                              |
|                   replaced with  "C" aka newer version.             |
|C/C++/D    -- from 74 .. Now.                                        |
|           -- "D" is the newest version replaces C and C++           |
|              "C++" is wide spread in all classes. C/C++ slowly      |
|              replace all other older lang "Cobol" and "Fortran"     |
|              in clasees.                                            |
|              Also, due to fact that these lang are based on "APL"   |
|              it makes the set, one of the OLDEST lang around.       |
|              This 50+ year lang set should of died a few years ago."|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

APL is not related to any other language which you mentioned. Before
APL2 it could not even be programmed with an
AZWERTY/ASCII/EBDIC/QWERTY keyboard.

|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Ada   83 .. 98  -- only taught in gov't sponsor classes. Teacher   |
|                   had to be certified in Ada before 98.            |
|      After 98  -- problem is, not enough teachers that know Ada"   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

What was so special about 98?

|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Languages that are for net and have little to no interest to main  |
|stream programers that want to deal with the native CPU.            |
|                                                                    |
|[..]"                                                               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

Web and/or GUI (but not native CPU) programming is mainstream.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Nasser M. Abbasi sent:
|------------|
|"[..]       |
|            |
|Python now ?|
|            |
|[..]"       |
|------------|

Recently the only course language for the Department of Physics
(though possibly lectured by the Department of Computer Science) of
the University of Coimbra was Python.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[(see below)]

On 01/07/2010 14:22, in article
alpine.LRH.2.00.1007011416040.12027@64bit-RedHat-Enterprise-Linux6beta,
"Colin Paul Gloster" <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, anon@anon.org alleged:
> 
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"[..]                                                                |
> |                                                                     |
> |APL/B/BCPL -- from late 50s .. late 70s                              |
> |                   replaced with  "C" aka newer version.             |
> |C/C++/D    -- from 74 .. Now.                                        |
> |           -- "D" is the newest version replaces C and C++           |
> |              "C++" is wide spread in all classes. C/C++ slowly      |
> |              replace all other older lang "Cobol" and "Fortran"     |
> |              in clasees.                                            |
> |              Also, due to fact that these lang are based on "APL"   |
> |              it makes the set, one of the OLDEST lang around.       |
> |              This 50+ year lang set should of died a few years ago."|
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> APL is not related to any other language which you mentioned.

As usual, anon is wrong. C is based on BCPL, which is based on CPL (not APL)
and CPL is based on  ... Algol 60, just like Pascal and (ultimately) Ada.

> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"Ada   83 .. 98  -- only taught in gov't sponsor classes. Teacher   |
> |                   had to be certified in Ada before 98.

More rubbish. My University taught Ada as the foundation language for CS1
and CS2 from 1996. The classes were not "gov't sponsor classes". None of the
teachers were " certified ".

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 01.07.10 01:42, Peter C. Chapin wrote:

> All that said, I do think that many novice programmer's find compiler
> error messages baffling and largely unhelpful.

Yes. Technical messages can definitely be unhelpful, and frustrating
when learning how to program.  In fact, "unhelpful" and "frustrating"
are the two very qualities of communication that no teaching effort
can afford!  They are necessarily damaging.  Picture it this way,
among humans:

S, a student of some subject asks questions.
T, a teacher on the subject, understands the questions, or thinks he does.
Then T answers, but, to S, his answers are unhelpful and frustrating.
Because S simply cannot understand the answers, since they are full
of yet-to-be-learned notions.
T might say that the answers are correct.
So what?
This is not pedagogical!
The messages are incorrect if intelligibility of a message
is a measure of its correctness in a given situation.

"unhelpful" and "frustrating" will drive S away from the subject.
Depending on S's self-esteem, he/she might try harder, but to
no avail since the messages cannot improve. So S might give up
in the end and use a different language or choose a different
career. Without need...

Ada provides for a solution to the problem caused by the advanced
technicalities in error messages, I think, using Ada's language profiles
like Ravenscar, but with a focus on teaching:
define a profile to be a language subset a la "Teach Packs" in DrScheme.
Teach packs, IIUC, will let you use, teach, and hence understand just the
parts of Ada that some programming subject demands.  Compilers that
are "aware" of the profile can then stop printing what is, in effect,
gibberish in a teaching situation.

Instead, compilers diagnose something more easily explained:
file.ada:123: "X is not supported in This-Teach-Pack"


I don't know how open GAP is, or how comprehensive in a teaching
society sense.  But it looks like one place to look for things
to be included in a teach pack.  Apparently, efforts like these can fail
when the result is known up front (by desire to teach X no matter what),
or if no impulse from outside computing departments creates resonance.
Psychology of teaching has some insight, and there is some empirical
evidence.

See e.g. the section titled "2. More is more" in:
"Seven Deadly Sins of Introductory Programming Language Design"
by McIver and Conway.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[(see below)]

On 01/07/2010 15:14, in article
4c2ca2d2$0$7666$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net, "Georg Bauhaus"
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
 
> Ada provides for a solution to the problem caused by the advanced
> technicalities in error messages, I think, using Ada's language profiles

In my experience there are no such problems in teaching Ada, with GNAT at
any rate. GNAT's error messages are generally of high quality at the moment,
and in my experience quite understandable to beginners.

> ... like Ravenscar, but with a focus on teaching:
> define a profile to be a language subset a la "Teach Packs" in DrScheme.
> Teach packs, IIUC, will let you use, teach, and hence understand just the
> parts of Ada that some programming subject demands.  Compilers that
> are "aware" of the profile can then stop printing what is, in effect,
> gibberish in a teaching situation.
> 
> Instead, compilers diagnose something more easily explained:
> file.ada:123: "X is not supported in This-Teach-Pack"

Why do you think this would be comprehensible to beginners, or even
desirable? It is a message about a pedagogical meta-level that has nothing
whatever to do with the problems of learning algorithmic construction
through the medium of a language.

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 01.07.10 16:27, (see below) wrote:
> On 01/07/2010 15:14, in article
> 4c2ca2d2$0$7666$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net, "Georg Bauhaus"
> <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
>  
>> Ada provides for a solution to the problem caused by the advanced
>> technicalities in error messages, I think, using Ada's language profiles
> 
> In my experience there are no such problems in teaching Ada, with GNAT at
> any rate. GNAT's error messages are generally of high quality at the moment,
> and in my experience quite understandable to beginners.

I shouldn't have stressed error message so much.  It's more about
concepts that are advanced, and how they can get in the way when
beginners know only beginners' concepts. According to findings of others,
error messages become less understandable then.

Indeed, GNAT's messages made me think "Fantastic!". For example, when
I first saw a message that very clearly told me what was wrong.
I had seen messages like
file, l.N, Syntax error
or
Syntax error at end of file

This is very different from
file:L:C: ";" should be "is"

In order to understand the first messages, a beginner might need help.
It does not say what syntax error, or where the error is, in the second case.

GNAT's message OTOH does not even presume knowledge of technical terms.
In fact I call it a *message* rather then a scanner status
indication.  The message is helpful and specifically addresses
what has been written. I find it encouraging.

Much less so when the messages are like the ones Peter Chapin has
quoted (about overload resolution). They make me think of a
language profile that disallows overloading.
Once you have it, the confusing messages are gone, or replaced
with something that has meaning in the context of the language profile.
(Lack of overloading is arguably a desirable quality of
real world programming languages, if one includes SPARK and Eiffel.
If someone feels artificially deprived of programming powers,
you can say that once overloading is explained, we'll see some
algorithms that use it.)


>> Instead, compilers diagnose something more easily explained:
>> file.ada:123: "X is not supported in This-Teach-Pack"
> 
> Why do you think this would be comprehensible to beginners, or even
> desirable? It is a message about a pedagogical meta-level that has nothing
> whatever to do with the problems of learning algorithmic construction
> through the medium of a language.

I won't insist on the wording, on the contrary.
It might seem preachy depriving students of advanced language features;
this is not the goal, however.

The goal is to gradually extend the set of included language features.
The idea leads to a partial order of language concepts (TBD).
Compiler messages would then mention the concepts
of the current extent, and no others.  For example, they will "talk"
about overload resolution like other good compilers "talk", compilers,
though, that translate languages not including overloading.
No one's feeling are hurt in this scenario I should think.
Or when the language profile does not include X, they print a nice,
encouraging message about X being for a later date in the course
or some such.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <alpine.LRH.2.00.1007011416040.12027@64bit-RedHat-Enterprise-Linux6beta>, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> writes:
>On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, anon@anon.org alleged:
>
>|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"[..]                                                                |
>|                                                                     |
>|APL/B/BCPL -- from late 50s .. late 70s                              |
>|                   replaced with  "C" aka newer version.             |
>|C/C++/D    -- from 74 .. Now.                                        |
>|           -- "D" is the newest version replaces C and C++           |
>|              "C++" is wide spread in all classes. C/C++ slowly      |
>|              replace all other older lang "Cobol" and "Fortran"     |
>|              in clasees.                                            |
>|              Also, due to fact that these lang are based on "APL"   |
>|              it makes the set, one of the OLDEST lang around.       |
>|              This 50+ year lang set should of died a few years ago."|
>|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>APL is not related to any other language which you mentioned. Before
>APL2 it could not even be programmed with an
>AZWERTY/ASCII/EBDIC/QWERTY keyboard.

Before C/C++ most schools had a class for APL, then B, then BCPL.  They 
did not teach CPL because it was "too large for use in many applications"
or used in teaching class, and Algol was limited to large universities. 
Most local city colleges and small universities never used Algol.

Plus:
Reference: "The Development of the C Language" by Dennis M. Ritchie

        As for Algol, Ritchie states: "BCPL, B, and C all fit firmly 
in the traditional procedural family typified by Fortran and Algol 60."
He never states that Algol or Fortran was used to build C.

Never trust wiki, especially when it been alter just hours or days before.
Use as a unproven work of art. with some programming examples.
It better to find at least three other works, such as published work that you 
can download freely or purchase.

>
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"Ada   83 .. 98  -- only taught in gov't sponsor classes. Teacher   |
>|                   had to be certified in Ada before 98.            |
>|      After 98  -- problem is, not enough teachers that know Ada"   |
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>What was so special about 98?

For Ada after 98. Officially in Nov 98 the gov't DOD drop direct control of 
Ada design and support for the US gov't.  Congress was not happy!

For a school to receive a check from the DOD the prof. had to be 
certified aka approved by the DOD to teach Ada until Nov 1998.
And until 1998 most schools did not teach Ada without that DOD 
check. NYU use the checks to aid the creation of GPL Ada compiler 
that we call GNAT. 

After 98, most Ada programmers were working in the CS field instead of 
teaching. And the teachers following what the local area companies wanted
aka C and Java, instead of Ada.

>
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"Languages that are for net and have little to no interest to main  |
>|stream programers that want to deal with the native CPU.            |
>|                                                                    |
>|[..]"                                                               |
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>Web and/or GUI (but not native CPU) programming is mainstream.

First, Web designer are like C programmers a dime will get you a dozen.
Plus, the next generation web language will use gui imaging and voice 
instead of html or any other written lang. That what I meant by the gui.

As for native CPU, the one area that also use the inernet is game playing.  
But using Java is too slow and ties up the network with it built-in secuity 
controls for packages that require a continuous connect.  While native CPU 
programming, is faster and does not require all the secuity that Java uses.

But mainstream programming deals with a lot of areas that have nothing 
to do with the internet. Ada other than the java version has little to 
do with the web design.

Yes, there are Ada programming packages for networking but these packages 
are not define in the RM yet. Now, controlling a missile, robot, train (full size 
or model) does not require the internet or any gui.  They only require an I/O 
port or access to memory mapped cell to communicated to the devices and 
sensors.

And algorithms for calculating the weather or environmental impact studies
do not require the internet or GUI either.  The GUI makes it easier to give 
a picture or an idea of what going on but not as accuracy as a set of 
numbers can be.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Gautier write-only]

> Neither do I. It is a puzzling psychological phenomenon. Only professional
> mathematicians can compete them.

Ahem. It sounds like an invitation to answer. Are you good at
fencing ? OK, just kidding, eh ? Anyway. I beg to disagree: you forgot
the physicists. *They* a lot better, if not the best, in this area, by
far.

> I have several books on numeric methods
> and statistics with source code attached, usually in FORTRAN. It is
> horrifying. Many scientific papers I had time to time to review contained
> code samples. I guess they were intended to illustrate some point,
> unfortunately absolutely in vain, because even Champollion were he still
> alive, would be unable to decipher these. (:-))

You guessed wrong: the goal is to discourage people trying the code
and seeing that it doesn't work at all, except eventually with the
specific data provided to illustrate the point.

G.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[(see below)]

On 01/07/2010 16:36, in article
4c2cb60f$0$7651$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net, "Georg Bauhaus"
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:

> [mostly agreed] ...

> Much less so when the messages are like the ones Peter Chapin has
> quoted (about overload resolution). They make me think of a
> language profile that disallows overloading.

So you lose Ada.Text_IO and all the arithmetic operators?

> Once you have it, the confusing messages are gone, or replaced
> with something that has meaning in the context of the language profile.
> (Lack of overloading is arguably a desirable quality of
> real world programming languages, if one includes SPARK and Eiffel.

That's not an argument I would support.
 
> The goal is to gradually extend the set of included language features.
> The idea leads to a partial order of language concepts (TBD).

Of course, "diminishing deception" is the essence of teaching complex
material. Ada supports it very well already: the various advanced features
are quite independent of each other, so the student is unlikely to stumble
into them (very unlikely, in my experience).

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> I had seen messages like
> file, l.N, Syntax error
> or
> Syntax error at end of file

My favourite was "Syntax error at line 0" (a Telelogic compiler from long
ago).

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Wilson]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400, <anon@anon.org> wrote:

>Plus:
> Reference: "The Development of the C Language" by Dennis M. Ritchie
>
>         As for Algol, Ritchie states: "BCPL, B, and C all fit firmly
> in the traditional procedural family typified by Fortran and Algol 60."
> He never states that Algol or Fortran was used to build C.
>
>

C is a structured assembly language for the DEC PDP 11.  If you doubt  
this, go back and examine the PDP 11 assembly language.  All of that ++  
and -- are a standard part of the assembly language addressing modes.  In  
particular, all of those indirect references (pointers) were necessary  
because the PDP 11 came with a 16 bit instruction set and only 8 bits were  
allowd for the data address.   Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level  
language of the time omitted pointers because almost all of their  
addressing was direct.  (You might also want to compare C to Bliss another  
sturctured assembly language for the PDP 11 and then ask which language  
copied from where.  The two languages offer an interesting contrast.)   
Richie started on the PDP 7, but quickly moved to the PDP 11 and may have  
forgotten the details that led to the final result.

Also, before you quote Richie or any other author, you need to read a  
peice by Isaak Asimov on how authors are the last people  to understand  
what they did and how they did it.  A good author creates much better than  
he/she knew at the time.  Later he/she tries to explain what they did and  
why; in the process, he/she creates a new,logical story.  The author  
beieves the new story and it sounds so good that almost evryone else does  
also.  Human nature is a funny thing.



Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 7/1/10 8:54 PM, (see below) wrote:

>> language profile that disallows overloading.
>
> So you lose Ada.Text_IO and all the arithmetic operators?


I'd be using a different library. One use case is when output should
be as simple as possible. I learned that working with just
digits seems to be a good way to get started with programming
in Ada. What is needed in this case is quick output of results, of
integers (or digits) and strings.  Since (Integer_)Text_IO has
more than is needed, it might be OK to introduce a simpler I/O package,
defer the introduction of "&" (and, of course, abstain from
Integer'Image). This leaves two I/O procedures: I/O of a string,
and I/O of an integer (or digit).  Only two types as yet,
no floats, no characters.  Then, use them like in

   Put_String ("Time of day is     ");
   Put_Integer (H);  Put_String (":");
   Put_Integer (M);  Put_String (":");
   Put_Integer (S);
   New_Line;

I am sure I don't like this approach for real programming, but
since they are just two subprograms, they can serve to explain
some basics no less than overloaded Put, I think.  (And be
justified by absence of funny messages about candidates, if that
is an issue.)
Characters can be introduced later, without loss for printing
text.
(An O-O approach---allegedly working well at ETH Z�rich---could use
overriding of Put if Ada offered it for its numbers and strings.
Not sure whether overriding vs overloading of 1-ary procedures
is such a big issue, though. But certainly things are simpler when
there is only one mechanism that associates arguments and
subprograms?)

Another use case is when printing composite objects.  Is Text_IO
the package you need here?  With overloadings?   Might one not just
as well form a sequence of statements from the "primitives" above.

Another, hypothetical, reason for excluding overloading at the
beginning (besides the overload resolution messages that seem
not so easy to understand) is keeping focus.
When the model of subprogram calls is less detailed due to
lack of overloading, then calls might appear less convenient,
but also exhibit a more regular construction principle.

Influence of overloading on understanding programs has been
studied a bit, AFAICS, both syntactic overloading and overloading
of subprograms.  Syntactic overloading seems to be misleading
learners when used excessively---a result contradicting
the very intent of the teaching language Turing, they say.
It is in this sense that I am nagging about the possibilities
of language profiles for teaching.  They can make the compiler
act like a language guide.


> Of course, "diminishing deception" is the essence of teaching complex
> material. Ada supports it very well already: the various advanced features
> are quite independent of each other, so the student is unlikely to stumble
> into them (very unlikely, in my experience).

That's good news and opposes some of what I have read so far.
Is it possibly good instructions that have made it unlikely
for students to stumble into advanced features?

Does good teaching require a good understanding
- of the independent features of Ada
- of the independence of features of Ada
- of how to combine them and when?

An then, when a teacher has different assorted backgrounds, picking
up the language of the day because that seems required, has he/she
got a chance to see all this clearly?  And to form instructions
accordingly?

Mentioning Ada and teaching 16 year olds has quite reliably provoked
laughter among teachers others and I have met. I can't imagine that
this laughter is caused by knowledge of how the language can be used
in teaching.  What about compiler messages then, if these teachers start
teaching Ada from their own perspective, which may seem plausible to
them, but not to experienced Ada teachers?

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[(see below)]

On 01/07/2010 23:00, in article
4c2d0fec$0$6877$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net, "Georg Bauhaus"
<rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> wrote:

> On 7/1/10 8:54 PM, (see below) wrote:
> 
>>> language profile that disallows overloading.
>> 
>> So you lose Ada.Text_IO and all the arithmetic operators?
> 
> 
> I'd be using a different library.

What about +_*/ ? 

> One use case is when output should
> be as simple as possible. I learned that working with just
> digits seems to be a good way to get started with programming
> in Ada. [...]

I think this is all totally unnecessary.

> Is it possibly good instructions that have made it unlikely
> for students to stumble into advanced features?
> 
> Does good teaching require a good understanding
> - of the independent features of Ada
> - of the independence of features of Ada
> - of how to combine them and when?

In other words: a good knowledge of Ada, and a good understanding of
effective teaching methods? Of course. How could you think that that might
not be the case?
 
> An then, when a teacher has different assorted backgrounds, picking
> up the language of the day because that seems required, has he/she
> got a chance to see all this clearly?  And to form instructions
> accordingly?

You'd have to ask them.

> Mentioning Ada and teaching 16 year olds has quite reliably provoked
> laughter among teachers others and I have met. I can't imagine that
> this laughter is caused by knowledge of how the language can be used
> in teaching.  What about compiler messages then, if these teachers start
> teaching Ada from their own perspective, which may seem plausible to
> them, but not to experienced Ada teachers?

The design of Ada can hardly be held responsible for subjecting students to
incompetent or untrained teachers.

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Randy Brukardt]

<anon@anon.org> wrote in message news:i0ii8c$1l7d$1@news.ett.com.ua...
...
> For a school to receive a check from the DOD the prof. had to be
> certified aka approved by the DOD to teach Ada until Nov 1998.
> And until 1998 most schools did not teach Ada without that DOD
> check. NYU use the checks to aid the creation of GPL Ada compiler
> that we call GNAT.

Amazing. RR Software sold large numbers of Ada compilers to schools and 
students from the mid 1980's until GNAT put us out of that business, and 
this is the first I ever heard of "checks from the DoD". (Most students 
bought the compilers dirrectly from us, like other textbooks.)

Early GNAT work was funded as part of the Ada 9x project (something RRS 
wasn't particularly happy about, but we could hardly complain given our own 
work as part of that project). (But I'm no expert on early GNAT 
development.)

                        Randy.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Randy Brukardt]

"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
news:4c2cb60f$0$7651$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
...
> Much less so when the messages are like the ones Peter Chapin has
> quoted (about overload resolution). They make me think of a
> language profile that disallows overloading.
> Once you have it, the confusing messages are gone, or replaced
> with something that has meaning in the context of the language profile.
> (Lack of overloading is arguably a desirable quality of
> real world programming languages, if one includes SPARK and Eiffel.
> If someone feels artificially deprived of programming powers,
> you can say that once overloading is explained, we'll see some
> algorithms that use it.)

I don't see any particular need for such a profile, at least in the case of 
overloading.

Janus/Ada produces error messages ignoring overloading when that is 
possible. For instance, if there is only one Put_String routine, the call:
    Put_String (10);
would get the message: "Unable to resolve - parameter has wrong type" with 
the arrow pointing at "10". The error handler also tries to make sensible 
messages for predefined math operators.

Thus, the reason you get unintelligible messages is that you are using 
heavily overloaded routines in student programs (like Text_IO). Don't do 
that and the problem pretty much goes away (at least until the students are 
taught about overloading, but hopefully by then they'll be better equiped to 
handle the complexity).

[Unfortunately, if we can't make a sensible message, we fall back on "Unable 
to resolve" with no other information, which is frustrating even to someone 
that has been programming in Ada for 25 years [that is, me]. We could never 
figure out a way to present the possibilities that made any sense; AdaCore 
has done a better job here.]

                                     Randy.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <i0j8df$i0s$1@munin.nbi.dk>, "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
><anon@anon.org> wrote in message news:i0ii8c$1l7d$1@news.ett.com.ua...
>....
>> For a school to receive a check from the DOD the prof. had to be
>> certified aka approved by the DOD to teach Ada until Nov 1998.
>> And until 1998 most schools did not teach Ada without that DOD
>> check. NYU use the checks to aid the creation of GPL Ada compiler
>> that we call GNAT.
>
>Amazing. RR Software sold large numbers of Ada compilers to schools and 
>students from the mid 1980's until GNAT put us out of that business, and 
>this is the first I ever heard of "checks from the DoD". (Most students 
>bought the compilers dirrectly from us, like other textbooks.)
>
>Early GNAT work was funded as part of the Ada 9x project (something RRS 
>wasn't particularly happy about, but we could hardly complain given our own 
>work as part of that project). (But I'm no expert on early GNAT 
>development.)
>
>                        Randy.
>
>

Rather you call it being sponsor, funded, or receiving a grant its 
all the same.  Money Talks!

As long as the DoD funded Ada and its projects, professors were 
happy to take the money.  Once the funding vanished, those 
professors redirected their efforts to projects using newer whiz-bang
languages that looked good when they submitted papers for publication. 
And a lot of college and universities require their professors
to publish on current topics, which Ada is not high on that list.

NYU Ada team just took it to the next level branching outside the 
university to become Adacore.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <op.ve6n2eysanduac@home-2l5xxxt7p3>, Wilson <leon.winslow@notes.udayton.edu> writes:
>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400, <anon@anon.org> wrote:
>
>>Plus:
>> Reference: "The Development of the C Language" by Dennis M. Ritchie
>>
>>         As for Algol, Ritchie states: "BCPL, B, and C all fit firmly
>> in the traditional procedural family typified by Fortran and Algol 60."
>> He never states that Algol or Fortran was used to build C.
>>
>>
>
>C is a structured assembly language for the DEC PDP 11.  If you doubt  
>this, go back and examine the PDP 11 assembly language.  All of that ++  
>and -- are a standard part of the assembly language addressing modes.  In  
>particular, all of those indirect references (pointers) were necessary  
>because the PDP 11 came with a 16 bit instruction set and only 8 bits were  
>allowd for the data address.   Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level  
>language of the time omitted pointers because almost all of their  
>addressing was direct.  (You might also want to compare C to Bliss another  
>sturctured assembly language for the PDP 11 and then ask which language  
>copied from where.  The two languages offer an interesting contrast.)   
>Richie started on the PDP 7, but quickly moved to the PDP 11 and may have  
>forgotten the details that led to the final result.

PDP-11 was just a type of Language Machine.  One of many concepts that 
lead to the creation of the Lisp Machine in the late 70s and 80s.  Just wish 
we could get a gpl version of the intel microcode compiler, then one could 
turn the intel CPU into a Language Machine.

>
>Also, before you quote Richie or any other author, you need to read a  
>peice by Isaak Asimov on how authors are the last people  to understand  
>what they did and how they did it.  A good author creates much better than  
>he/she knew at the time.  Later he/she tries to explain what they did and  
>why; in the process, he/she creates a new,logical story.  The author  
>beieves the new story and it sounds so good that almost evryone else does  
>also.  Human nature is a funny thing.
>


Before quoting the late "Isaak Asimov" you should read "Janet Asimov" 
his wife on this concept. Janet is better than her husband in her 
vision of the future and mankind. Isaak suggested that without his wife, 
his visions would have imploded into a black hole.






>
>
>Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 7/2/10 1:50 AM, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> I don't see any particular need for such a profile, at least in the case of
> overloading.
>
> Janus/Ada produces error messages ignoring overloading when that is
> possible. For instance, if there is only one Put_String routine, the call:
>      Put_String (10);
> would get the message: "Unable to resolve - parameter has wrong type" with
> the arrow pointing at "10". The error handler also tries to make sensible
> messages for predefined math operators.
>
> Thus, the reason you get unintelligible messages is that you are using
> heavily overloaded routines in student programs (like Text_IO). Don't do
> that and the problem pretty much goes away (at least until the students are
> taught about overloading, but hopefully by then they'll be better equiped to
> handle the complexity).

Frankly, and with all due respect, your argument is exactly that
of a C programmer when he denies advantages of using Ada:

"Don't do that and the problem pretty much goes away..."

That's true, but it doesn't happen.

The int problem won't go away and continues to affect IT at large.
Does this make anyone switch?  Continuing the analogy,
the advantages of Ada's fundamental type system are undeniably
demonstrated in a comparative setting such as McCormick's.
Yet once people start to like int, or Ada I guess, they won't let go.
There may be evidence that char and int etc. don't work well.
But rather than give up the first plan (C) and switch to
a different plan (Ada) they proudly defend their property (C)...

Profiles don't require switching languages. But if
(and only if) one feature of Ada turns out to be an obstacle
to early learning, is it not better to keep the language as is
and bridle it with a profile that removes the obstacle as needed?

(It need not be overloading, if overloading does not cause the
teaching problems or learning problems that Peter Chapin reported.)

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 7/2/10 12:11 AM, (see below) wrote:
> On 01/07/2010 23:00, in article
> 4c2d0fec$0$6877$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net, "Georg Bauhaus"
> <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>  wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/10 8:54 PM, (see below) wrote:
>>
>>>> language profile that disallows overloading.
>>>
>>> So you lose Ada.Text_IO and all the arithmetic operators?
>>
>>
>> I'd be using a different library.
>
> What about +_*/ ?

Later. There are only integers now.

>> One use case is when output should
>> be as simple as possible. I learned that working with just
>> digits seems to be a good way to get started with programming
>> in Ada. [...]
>
> I think this is all totally unnecessary.

OK.

>> Is it possibly good instructions that have made it unlikely
>> for students to stumble into advanced features?
>>
>> Does good teaching require a good understanding
>> - of the independent features of Ada
>> - of the independence of features of Ada
>> - of how to combine them and when?
>
> In other words: a good knowledge of Ada, and a good understanding of
> effective teaching methods? Of course. How could you think that that might
> not be the case?

Experience has made me and others think, that generally,
statistically, teachers are not language experts and not
teaching experts (some of them, see below). They nevertheless
(must) act as language teachers and this is the fact from
which to start.

One inevitable problem with teaching quality is generated
by a contradictory moment in the life of many university
teachers, as is cautiously mentioned here and there:
at the time you prepare for being a doctor,
you start being a teacher already.  But, in general, there
is no formal education that could have introduced you to the
subject of teaching, only good will and attempts at informal
advice.
Reason: PhDs are several years older than others who
study to become a (school) teacher, yet they would have to
study the very same subjects.  But do PhD candidates and
first year students sit in the same room? Unthinkable.
Even offerings made especially for PhD candidates seem to
pose a threat ... whatever it is that PhDs fear when they
are supposed to learn how to teach. Maybe it is status inconsistency.
(This is from some Australian teaching association IIRC,
but the observation is not restricted to the continent,
I think.)

>> An then, when a teacher has different assorted backgrounds, picking
>> up the language of the day because that seems required, has he/she
>> got a chance to see all this clearly?  And to form instructions
>> accordingly?
>
> You'd have to ask them.

They simply cannot see things the same way an expert sees them.


> The design of Ada can hardly be held responsible for subjecting students to
> incompetent or untrained teachers.

The suggestion is to start from the design of Ada, as is,
and not change it a bit.  Have experts create profiles
that help countervail any venial incompetence on the part of
teachers.  The latter is a fact.  One can point at teachers,
say some truths about how good or bad a language is taught at
some school.  Sure, but it seems easier to equip Ada with
optional, field-tested teaching profiles.

We cannot run tools that create different teachers as output,
but we can have compilers that optionally offer guidance as
to which features of the language to include in teaching at
this or that stage.

The task, then, is a valid survey.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 03.07.10 10:35, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> Profiles are bad, they create many new languages and require a deep
> language understanding as for what must be in and out of the profile.

When students study only the sequential parts of Ada
they are not learning a new language by not starting
with tasks.  Learning sequential algorithms is one example
where experienced teachers may or may not want to
draw attention to concurrent algorithms.  It's their say.
They compiler can assist with a profile.

I'm not advocating this particular profile for teaching.
It happens to be an identifiable subset and may or may not be
the preference of experienced teachers.  Experienced teachers
can identify these subsets and test them. It's *not* programmers
(in this role) who have to find teaching profiles and wonder
how they are consistent with what.

As a teacher, you may request that a sequential profile
be turned on leading to simpler error messages should a
tasking construct slip into a student's program.  The
message then simply complains that this is a concurrency
construct.

Messages involving the details of tasking may make students
even more curious.  If you want this, don't turn on the profile.
If you think that curiosity should find an object withing
the subset you are teaching, turn the profile on.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[sjw]

On Jul 1, 6:11 pm, a...@anon.org wrote:

>  Now, controlling a missile, robot, train (full size
> or model) does not require the internet or any gui.  They only require an I/O
> port or access to memory mapped cell to communicated to the devices and
> sensors.

That might be true for, say, a wire-guided torpedo but I can see
problems with airborne missiles.

And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't use IP
to talk to the target tracking sensor computers?

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 03.07.10 14:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:35:06 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 03.07.10 10:35, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>>> Profiles are bad, they create many new languages and require a deep
>>> language understanding as for what must be in and out of the profile.
>>
>> When students study only the sequential parts of Ada
>> they are not learning a new language by not starting
>> with tasks.
> 
> So, what would the reason to forbid tasks then?

As I said earlier, one reason for restricting the language
to some subset for teaching is error messages that should
not refer to advanced concepts (yet to be studied).
Error messages of this kind have been reported to create frustration.


>  You can
> mark the manual pages about concurrency as "adult content." But I doubt
> students read anything anyway.

If student don't read, there is more reason to have the compiler indicate
a clear sectioning of the language.  That's what compilers do anyway,
be it by not supporting some annex or be it by following the rules of
an existing standardized profile.



> Besides that the example is unrealistic,

Absence of tasking in first programs is unrealistic?

> how the message "tasks are
> forbidden by the profile X" were better than "limited object cannot be
> initialized".

A more pedagogic, yet accurate(!), message is better than undecipherable
advanced tech talk for professionals. Did you notice how GNAT's message
";" should be "is"
does not mention the word "syntax"? Teaching profiles are to
help those who do not yet know anything about task or limited.

foo.ada:14: "`task' is a concurrency construct; \
 concurrency is turned off in this teach pack"

To me, this seems better to me than any message that requires an understanding
of words having to do with tasking.

It isn't easy for me to make GNAT emit a rather technical message
about tasking.  Here is an attempt:

     6.       Job : Task;
                   |
        >>> subtype indication expected
        >>> missing ";"

That's all logical seen from the compiler's perspective, I guess.
But it does require some explanation by the teacher (remember:
the student might think, quite legitimately, that there exists
a type named "Task").
Explanations by teachers is the stuff from which to make
"teaching profile messages".  The example above might seem
a lame attempt at an example, since, perhaps, a teacher
has no trouble wiping away all questions by noting that
"task" is a reserved word, and more about it later.
Just get rid of it. But that's the point!  That is what
error messages can strive to be like in a "teaching compiler".
Notice how the message at foo.ada:14 says just this.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Colin Paul Gloster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1341 bytes --]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Georg Bauhaus sent:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                              |
|                                                                   |
|An then, when a teacher has different assorted backgrounds, picking|
|up the language of the day because that seems required, has he/she |
|got a chance to see all this clearly?  And to form instructions    |
|accordingly?                                                       |
|                                                                   |
|[..]"                                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

My secondary degree (from Umeå University and Luleå University of
Technology) is my only degree for which Ada was on the course. It was
lectured in only one subject. That subject had two lecturers, both
lecturing about (parts of) Ada (they did not know all of Ada, not even
with their knowledge combined). The lecture notes were copied from
another university. One of the lecturers asked me about some of the
language which he was to lecture us about soon afterwards, because he
did not know the language well enough to be lecturing on it.

Yours sincerely,
Paul Colin Gloster

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Peter Hermann]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
> ... a teacher
> has no trouble wiping away all questions by noting that
> "task" is a reserved word, and more about it later.
> Just get rid of it. But that's the point!  That is what
> error messages can strive to be like in a "teaching compiler".

that's the point indeed.
sehr gut.

The evolution of compilers towards better error messages
may only happen incrementally.
Therefore AdaCores "GNAT Academic Program (GAP)" is so precious.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Georg Bauhaus sent:
|--------------------------------------------|
|"On 03.07.10 10:35, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:|
|                                            |
|[..]"                                       |
|--------------------------------------------|

It is not yet July 3rd, 2010. Many recent posts by Dmitry A. Kazakov
with bogus timestamps are not being shown by two news servers which I
use.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Non scrivetemi]

> Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level language of the time omitted
> pointers because almost all of their addressing was direct. 

I don't know what you meant with this sentence. It was simply the case that
pointers weren't provided in the base language because they were
unnecesssary. This is not the same as "all of their addressing was direct".

In fact pointers were used by the compiled code for argument passing
etc. but they were not an abstraction that was required at the source
level.

BTW since this is comp.lang.ada where people are reminded Ada is a proper
name and not an acronym, you should be reminded FORTRAN and COBOL *are*
acronyms and should be capitalised as I wrote and not as you wrote.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 02.07.10 17:54, Non scrivetemi wrote:

> BTW since this is comp.lang.ada where people are reminded Ada is a proper
> name and not an acronym, you should be reminded FORTRAN and COBOL *are*
> acronyms and should be capitalised as I wrote and not as you wrote.

Does capitalization apply to old FORTRAN only? ISO/IEC writes "Fortran"
these days.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Peter C. Chapin]

On 2010-07-02 12:10, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Does capitalization apply to old FORTRAN only? ISO/IEC writes "Fortran"
> these days.

I believe starting with Fortran 90 there was an official decision to
spell the name as "Fortran." Thus FORTRAN refers to versions of the
language before Fortran 90.

I don't have a reference for this but I used to lurk on
comp.lang.fortran and I believe it was discussed there by people who
seemed to know what they were talking about.

Peter

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Non scrivetemi]

> The design of Ada can hardly be held responsible for subjecting students
> to incompetent or untrained teachers.

Indeed, Michael Feldman, one of the more famous professors advocating and
teaching Ada appears to me to be extraordinarily good at what he does. I
have one of his early textbooks and it's positively outstanding for clarity
and cleanliness.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <4205a7a1-e193-4057-b19c-7ae4a3122a1b@32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com> writes:
>On Jul 1, 6:11=A0pm, a...@anon.org wrote:
>
>>  Now, controlling a missile, robot, train (full size
>> or model) does not require the internet or any gui. =A0They only require =
>an I/O
>> port or access to memory mapped cell to communicated to the devices and
>> sensors.
>
>That might be true for, say, a wire-guided torpedo but I can see
>problems with airborne missiles.
>
>And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't use IP
>to talk to the target tracking sensor computers?


The internet contains a swamp of hackers both domestic and foreign that 
would love to get it hands on a missle.  You ever heard of terrorist. So, to 
control a missle on the internet is treason type of programming.

The guidance system may use GPS but that just a series of numbers from 
transmitted by a group of satellites through a set of radio frequences that is 
finally transfer into the system by a serial/parallel/"memory mapped" port. 
And that's not an IP or the internet connection.

Then during a short time after launch the missile might have a kill switch 
but that would be secure radio or laser frequence with another port on the 
system.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[anon]

In <i0kssq$dcc$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, Peter Hermann <h@h.de> writes:
>Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
>> ... a teacher
>> has no trouble wiping away all questions by noting that
>> "task" is a reserved word, and more about it later.
>> Just get rid of it. But that's the point!  That is what
>> error messages can strive to be like in a "teaching compiler".
>
>that's the point indeed.
>sehr gut.
>
>The evolution of compilers towards better error messages
>may only happen incrementally.
>Therefore AdaCores "GNAT Academic Program (GAP)" is so precious.


Most compilers are still written in software shop from programmers 
that care less who uses them.

But Adacore's GNAT was design at NYU.  Dr. Robert Dewar and the Ada Team
was requested to design a compiler that aid the Ada programmer. And, 
Robert Dewar a NYU associate professor at NYU in 80s .. 90s knew that 
most professors do not want to help students with simple syntax errors 
that a compiler could easily give a hint to.  So, GNAT is great in 
reporting the syntax errors.  With some warning messages on simple 
program design flaws like report a warning that routine calling 
itself may result in an endless loop error.  And this also, trys to 
fills a few requirments from the RM which other compilers have not.


Dr. Robert Dewar -- At NYU he was codirector of both the Ada-Ed and 
                    GNAT projects. And is a cofounder, president, and 
                    CEO of AdaCore.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

anon@att.net writes:

> In <4205a7a1-e193-4057-b19c-7ae4a3122a1b@32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com> writes:

>>And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't use IP
>>to talk to the target tracking sensor computers?
>
> The internet contains a swamp of hackers both domestic and foreign
> that would love to get it hands on a missle.  You ever heard of
> terrorist. So, to control a missle on the internet is treason type of
> programming.

I said "IP" which means "Internet Protocol". Never for one moment did I
suggest that such a system would be connected to the Internet.

If two computers need to communicate and IP over Ethernet is suitable
(and that includes an awful lot of military systems) we would be wasting
the taxpayers' money and our own limited resources to roll our own comms
stack when we can get one off the shelf.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> writes:

> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Georg Bauhaus sent:
> |--------------------------------------------|
> |"On 03.07.10 10:35, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:|
> |                                            |
> |[..]"                                       |
> |--------------------------------------------|
>
> It is not yet July 3rd, 2010. Many recent posts by Dmitry A. Kazakov
> with bogus timestamps are not being shown by two news servers which I
> use.

eternal-september.org certainly doesn't show them. Perhaps they will
mysteriously appear in due course!

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 02.07.10 19:52, Non scrivetemi wrote:
>> The design of Ada can hardly be held responsible for subjecting students
>> to incompetent or untrained teachers.
> 
> Indeed, Michael Feldman, one of the more famous professors advocating and
> teaching Ada appears to me to be extraordinarily good at what he does. I
> have one of his early textbooks and it's positively outstanding for clarity
> and cleanliness.

Is there a connection? A book may take the lead.
A compiler follows the lead:

Michael Feldman's books are structured in a certain way.
He selects topics, introduces subjects, and suggest a style
of programming.  Other authors have done this, too,
some books are outstanding, demonstrating teaching qualities
and being selected for introductory course work for a reason(*).

Imagine a compiler that diagnoses student's early programs
such that messages use words known after reading early
chapters 1, 2, and 3, but that try to rephrase messages
requiring knowledge of chapter 8 to understand them.
That could be a friendly rejection, possibly with pointers
to other chapters.
The technique seems possible, some existing compilers
include references to the LRM in their diagnostic messages.

My hope is that profiles can help with this to some extent.


Btu I'm missing the match!
__
(*) I have not always been sure that teachers had had
the time to look into a few books before recommending one,
though.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Warren]

Kulin Remailer expounded in news:6KDPK04Y40360.2153472222@reece.net.au:

>> I remember this when I was young. For some reason, students 
>> get real hung up on compile time errors.  It's like they are
>> horses bouncing around inside the gate, waiting for the door
>> to open. 
> 
> That was the questionable thinking behind a hilarious variant of PL/I
> called PL/C, Cornell University's PL/I compiler. Students just want
> their programs to compile and run, don't bother them with details like
> whether it's correct or not. Not a good assumption but...it was enough
> for somebody or some group of people to put out a pretty interesting
> compiler and get it out there in academia, circa late 70s early 80s
> timeframe. 
> 
> The purpose of PL/C was to take almost any input and hammer it until
> it looked like a PL/I program, compile it, and generate an executable
> from it. It certainly may not do what you intended, but by george, the
> damn thing will almost always start running. What happens
> next...nobody knows. 

Wow- that's quite the response to the issue!

Warren

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Warren]

Simon Wright expounded in news:m2fx03xahe.fsf@pushface.org:

> Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:
> 
>> I had seen messages like
>> file, l.N, Syntax error
>> or
>> Syntax error at end of file
> 
> My favourite was "Syntax error at line 0" (a Telelogic compiler from long
> ago).

That narrows it down to:

a) No line was in error (no line zero).
b) The first line was in error (starting at zero).
c) Or the whole program was in error.

;-)

Warren

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <m2bpapyatv.fsf@pushface.org>, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
>anon@att.net writes:
>
>> In <4205a7a1-e193-4057-b19c-7ae4a3122a1b@32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com> writes:
>
>>>And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't use IP
>>>to talk to the target tracking sensor computers?
>>
>> The internet contains a swamp of hackers both domestic and foreign
>> that would love to get it hands on a missle.  You ever heard of
>> terrorist. So, to control a missle on the internet is treason type of
>> programming.
>
>I said "IP" which means "Internet Protocol". Never for one moment did I
>suggest that such a system would be connected to the Internet.
>
>If two computers need to communicate and IP over Ethernet is suitable
>(and that includes an awful lot of military systems) we would be wasting
>the taxpayers' money and our own limited resources to roll our own comms
>stack when we can get one off the shelf.

I knew what you meant by "IP". But:

    1. Once a missle is launched the any wired "IP" is no long a valid 
       port.  
    2. Wireless IP is no good, do to hacking during flight. Do not want 
       a hacker forcing a 180 degree turn or having that missle just 
       land so they can use it against someone else. Do you?

Which means that the system must be able to operate without human 
connection except for the system kill switch after launch. So, besides 
the radio port for the "Kill" command, the missle has to be disabled 
any and all humand connection, that include any and all IP subsystems.  
So, it must rely on the radio GPS system to calculate the position of 
itself and the target.  

Plus, the gov't is perfect for wasting tax payer money even if it borrowed 
from any country.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Marc A. Criley]

On 07/02/2010 08:54 PM, anon@att.net wrote:

>
> I knew what you meant by "IP". But:
>
>      1. Once a missle is launched the any wired "IP" is no long a valid
>         port.
>      2. Wireless IP is no good, do to hacking during flight. Do not want
>         a hacker forcing a 180 degree turn or having that missle just
>         land so they can use it against someone else. Do you?
>
> Which means that the system must be able to operate without human
> connection except for the system kill switch after launch. So, besides
> the radio port for the "Kill" command, the missle has to be disabled
> any and all humand connection, that include any and all IP subsystems.
> So, it must rely on the radio GPS system to calculate the position of
> itself and the target.

Wrong.

As in "you are obviously completely unfamiliar with the field" wrong.

Several active, deployed missile systems (such as the 
Patriot--http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot) utilize 
"IFTUs" (In-Flight Target Updates) for mid-course correction of the 
missile's trajectory towards its intended target. These updates are 
"radioed" to the missile from a ground station with up-to-date target 
information. The missile's seeker then guides the missile in for the 
final kill.

There are other (cruise) missile systems such as the Tactical Tomahawk 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109_Tomahawk#Tactical_Tomahawk) that 
loiter in an area of interest and then use in-flight retargeting for 
final targeting.

Obviously the command links are well-encrypted to prevent hostiles from 
usurping control.

Marc "Yes, by day I have been known to do rocket science" Criley

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

anon@att.net writes:

> In <m2bpapyatv.fsf@pushface.org>, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
>>anon@att.net writes:
>>
>>> In <4205a7a1-e193-4057-b19c-7ae4a3122a1b@32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com> writes:
>>
>>>>And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't use IP
>>>>to talk to the target tracking sensor computers?
>>>
>>> The internet contains a swamp of hackers both domestic and foreign
>>> that would love to get it hands on a missle.  You ever heard of
>>> terrorist. So, to control a missle on the internet is treason type of
>>> programming.
>>
>>I said "IP" which means "Internet Protocol". Never for one moment did I
>>suggest that such a system would be connected to the Internet.
>>
>>If two computers need to communicate and IP over Ethernet is suitable
>>(and that includes an awful lot of military systems) we would be wasting
>>the taxpayers' money and our own limited resources to roll our own comms
>>stack when we can get one off the shelf.
>
> I knew what you meant by "IP". But:
>
>     1. Once a missle is launched the any wired "IP" is no long a valid 
>        port.

I should have also pointed out that I was talking about the missile
launch computer talking to the target tracking computer, *not* about
missile control computer to missile. And indeed in the system I'm
working on IP *is* the comms stack for this purpose.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <e411d$4c2f383f$433a4efa$4211@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>On 07/02/2010 08:54 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
>
>>
>> I knew what you meant by "IP". But:
>>
>>      1. Once a missle is launched the any wired "IP" is no long a valid
>>         port.
>>      2. Wireless IP is no good, do to hacking during flight. Do not want
>>         a hacker forcing a 180 degree turn or having that missle just
>>         land so they can use it against someone else. Do you?
>>
>> Which means that the system must be able to operate without human
>> connection except for the system kill switch after launch. So, besides
>> the radio port for the "Kill" command, the missle has to be disabled
>> any and all humand connection, that include any and all IP subsystems.
>> So, it must rely on the radio GPS system to calculate the position of
>> itself and the target.
>
>Wrong.
>
>As in "you are obviously completely unfamiliar with the field" wrong.
>
>Several active, deployed missile systems (such as the 
>Patriot--http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot) utilize 
>"IFTUs" (In-Flight Target Updates) for mid-course correction of the 
>missile's trajectory towards its intended target. These updates are 
>"radioed" to the missile from a ground station with up-to-date target 
>information. The missile's seeker then guides the missile in for the 
>final kill.
>
>There are other (cruise) missile systems such as the Tactical Tomahawk 
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109_Tomahawk#Tactical_Tomahawk) that 
>loiter in an area of interest and then use in-flight retargeting for 
>final targeting.
>
>Obviously the command links are well-encrypted to prevent hostiles from 
>usurping control.
>
>Marc "Yes, by day I have been known to do rocket science" Criley

The mid-course correction type of systems is outdated, and has been reported 
that it has been hacked.  What the gov't wants a smart "AI" brain for its 
missiles, but the public reject this type of weapon.  Plus there is no 
encryption that is perfect, only the amount of time a hacker needed to crack 
it and that's is the true security, aka "Time".

But what we we talking about was the use of IP.  And at the movements 
most embedded processors have built in serial port and some even come 
will parallel port, so why add extra layer of hardware and software with 
their problems when it is not needed. In simplistic terms just add a digital 
radio receiver and your good to go.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

anon@att.net writes:

> But what we we talking about was the use of IP.  And at the movements
> most embedded processors have built in serial port and some even come
> will parallel port, so why add extra layer of hardware and software
> with their problems when it is not needed. In simplistic terms just
> add a digital radio receiver and your good to go.

AAARGH! The comms link to the missile doesn't use IP! Neither Marc nor I
said it did!

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Marc A. Criley]

On 07/03/2010 04:50 PM, anon@att.net wrote:

> The mid-course correction type of systems is outdated

Again... "obviously unfamiliar with the field".

IFTUs are utilized by deployed missile systems, today, and will be for 
years to come. And are utilized by new and upgraded missile designs.

 > and has been reported that it has been hacked

By whom? When? What was the nature of the "hack"? Was it done in a 
government defense lab to assess vulnerability? Did it happen on a 
battlefield somewhere? Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".


Any "outdated system" that works is better than one that exists only as 
a proposal or in theory.

Marc A. Criley

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <m2y6drwk3p.fsf@pushface.org>, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
>anon@att.net writes:
>
>> But what we we talking about was the use of IP.  And at the movements
>> most embedded processors have built in serial port and some even come
>> will parallel port, so why add extra layer of hardware and software
>> with their problems when it is not needed. In simplistic terms just
>> add a digital radio receiver and your good to go.
>
>AAARGH! The comms link to the missile doesn't use IP! Neither Marc nor I
>said it did!

If you check back you were te first, to bring up "IP".

  sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
  Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 03:45:26 -0700 (PDT)

  >And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't 
  >use IP to talk to the target tracking sensor computers?


  Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
  Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:53:32 +0100

  >I said "IP" which means "Internet Protocol". Never for one moment 
  >did I suggest that such a system would be connected to the Internet.

So, now you are trying to say you did not talk about "IP".

"IP" ("Internet Protocol") is a protocol that is use on network cards 
or network modems. Now ISDN, is an example of a network where most of 
its modem is normally connected to the system through an serial 
interface. In a ISDN system the network uses an "Internet Protocol"
but on the serial sise it uses a different communication protocol than 
"IP". But the ISDN modem or any other network card/modem/Wifi might 
be weight difference between a getting the job done or giving the technology 
to the guy you were trying to kill.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <ca786$4c30ca52$433a4efa$4690@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>On 07/03/2010 04:50 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
>
>> The mid-course correction type of systems is outdated
>
>Again... "obviously unfamiliar with the field".
>
>IFTUs are utilized by deployed missile systems, today, and will be for 
>years to come. And are utilized by new and upgraded missile designs.
>
> > and has been reported that it has been hacked
>
>By whom? When? What was the nature of the "hack"? Was it done in a 
>government defense lab to assess vulnerability? Did it happen on a 
>battlefield somewhere? Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".
>
>

I do not remember who said but it under the Bush jr. administration
and they said that the missile were hack. This was reported at the 
end of Bush jr first term.

Also, if a person works in the R&D for a missile, you know the paper 
work a person signs keeps that person from giving too many details, 
unless they would like to be charge with Treason.


>Any "outdated system" that works is better than one that exists only as 
>a proposal or in theory.
>
>Marc A. Criley

Yes, outdated.  The gov't wants their young fighter who are great at 
video-game war to use be remote controlled missile. A few can act 
like 100s of fighters, but that has been hack.  So, the gov't now into 
pattern recognition, where a missile is given a set of pictures, etc. and 
let that puppy go hunting.  The system would pick the first, if 
possible do it job, if not goes find the second on the list, and 
so on through the list until the job is done or the list is empty or its 
out of range then it self-destruct to keep the technology from the wrong 
hands. 
The idea is to kill the CEO and its "board of directories" with a few 
"stock holders" to boot and no more war with little to no passer-by 
being hurt. Just a "Nice and Clean" kill.

But pattern recognition will never be 100 percent. And the general 
public say no to this technology because this type of killing is 
inhumane. War is suppose to be messy not clean and it over quickly.
The clean type of war allows a war to last 10, 25 or even a 100 plus 
years. And the people were are fighting now would love a 100 years 
war, they would win in the end because the world will turn against us 
by that time.

But lets get back to Ada. because this is Ada's newsgroup not a weapons 
newsgroup.  And weapons are only one of many things that Ada can be 
great at, if its allowed to be. If people start creating libraries instead of 
just binders for other languages.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Marc A. Criley]

On 07/04/2010 06:22 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
> In<ca786$4c30ca52$433a4efa$4690@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley"<mcNOSPAM@mckae.com>  writes:
>> By whom? When? What was the nature of the "hack"? Was it done in a
>> government defense lab to assess vulnerability? Did it happen on a
>> battlefield somewhere? Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".
>
> I do not remember who said but it under the Bush jr. administration
> and they said that the missile were hack. This was reported at the
> end of Bush jr first term.

"I do not remember who said..."

"they said..."

"This was reported..."

Pffffft. Silly anon. I make a simple request:

 >>Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".

> Also, if a person works in the R&D for a missile, you know the paper
> work a person signs keeps that person from giving too many details,
> unless they would like to be charge with Treason.

It's not limited to R&D. And it's not the paperwork that a person signs, 
it's the security clearance they possess that protects such information. 
  And while violating one's clearance would subject them to potentially 
serious penalties, the nature of the violation would have to be quite 
egregious to rise to the level of Treason.

>> Any "outdated system" that works is better than one that exists only as
>> a proposal or in theory.
>
> Yes, outdated.  The gov't wants their young fighter who are great at
> video-game war to use be remote controlled missile. A few can act
> like 100s of fighters, but that has been hack.  So, the gov't now into
> pattern recognition, where a missile is given a set of pictures, etc. and
> let that puppy go hunting.  The system would pick the first, if
> possible do it job, if not goes find the second on the list, and
> so on through the list until the job is done or the list is empty or its
> out of range then it self-destruct to keep the technology from the wrong
> hands.

(I know I'm playing a fool's game, but it's a holiday weekend so I 
figure 'what the hell?' :-)

You are so phenomenally ignorant of missile technology that it's 
laughable. Actually, it's not the ignorance that's laughable, it's your 
pretentiousness in supposing yourself in any way knowledgeable enough in 
this area to go into a public forum--albeit using your silly 
pseudonym--and declaim upon matters of which every word demonstrates 
your ignorance.

I give you points for chutzpah, not many are willing to publicly 
proclaim their ignorance with such verve and vigor!

Marc A. Criley

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

*plonk*

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <7865d$4c3125c1$433a4efa$24658@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>On 07/04/2010 06:22 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
>> In<ca786$4c30ca52$433a4efa$4690@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley"<mcNOSPAM@mckae.com>  writes:
>>> By whom? When? What was the nature of the "hack"? Was it done in a
>>> government defense lab to assess vulnerability? Did it happen on a
>>> battlefield somewhere? Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".
>>
>> I do not remember who said but it under the Bush jr. administration
>> and they said that the missile were hack. This was reported at the
>> end of Bush jr first term.
>
>"I do not remember who said..."
>
>"they said..."
>
>"This was reported..."
>
>Pffffft. Silly anon. I make a simple request:
>
> >>Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".

FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC "AP wire" -- should I go on.  They reported that 
the gov't verified that the missiles were hack. Not sure if CNN cover the 
story.

Watching the news is how I found out about it.

>
>> Also, if a person works in the R&D for a missile, you know the paper
>> work a person signs keeps that person from giving too many details,
>> unless they would like to be charge with Treason.
>
>It's not limited to R&D. And it's not the paperwork that a person signs, 
>it's the security clearance they possess that protects such information. 
>  And while violating one's clearance would subject them to potentially 
>serious penalties, the nature of the violation would have to be quite 
>egregious to rise to the level of Treason.
>

Anytime US is at war, include the ones the we are in today, the charge is 
more likely to be Treason than any other charge. Of course, that before our 
current pres and AG. No telling what could happen!  I say that because it 
anyone guess what will happen if those new spys are found guilt. Back in 
the cold war days it was a charge of Treason and Death when they were 
found guilty! If you remember you history, there was a couple who were 
charged with Treason and paid with their lives.


>>> Any "outdated system" that works is better than one that exists only as
>>> a proposal or in theory.
>>
>> Yes, outdated.  The gov't wants their young fighter who are great at
>> video-game war to use be remote controlled missile. A few can act
>> like 100s of fighters, but that has been hack.  So, the gov't now into
>> pattern recognition, where a missile is given a set of pictures, etc. and
>> let that puppy go hunting.  The system would pick the first, if
>> possible do it job, if not goes find the second on the list, and
>> so on through the list until the job is done or the list is empty or its
>> out of range then it self-destruct to keep the technology from the wrong
>> hands.
>
>(I know I'm playing a fool's game, but it's a holiday weekend so I 
>figure 'what the hell?' :-)
>
>You are so phenomenally ignorant of missile technology that it's 
>laughable. Actually, it's not the ignorance that's laughable, it's your 
>pretentiousness in supposing yourself in any way knowledgeable enough in 
>this area to go into a public forum--albeit using your silly 
>pseudonym--and declaim upon matters of which every word demonstrates 
>your ignorance.
>

The robot control drones, the ACLU and others has been trying to stop the 
gov't from using them. 
Reference: News

On pattern recognition its not silly, just have some inside universities info, 
that may not be a part of the military info loop yet!  It is hard to believe 
that people in the in the military or other subcontractors do not know 
since a number of universities like Berkley and MIT with others have been 
working since the mid 1990s on missile guidance system that use 
pattern recognition hardware/software. All under the eye of the DoD.

I prefer other high tech systems. and some of those tech version might be 
against the Geneva Conventions, but like they say "War is ...".  And since 
terrorist do not follow the Geneva Convention, why should be in dealing with 
them. And what I like is under some of those other systems no one get hurt 
not even a passer by, that is until after the trial then that another issue.. 
Just a totally clean and may be a very short war. And Ada is prefect for 
a number of these high tech systems.


>I give you points for chutzpah, not many are willing to publicly 
>proclaim their ignorance with such verve and vigor!
>
>Marc A. Criley

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Georg Bauhaus sent:

|----------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                     |
|                                                          |
|[..]                                                      |
|__                                                        |
|(*) I have not always been sure that teachers had had     |
|the time to look into a few books before recommending one,|
|though."                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------|

In Dublin City University we were lectured by someone who did not even
read the parts of the book which he assigned to us.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Marc A. Criley]

I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer.

A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical 
of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges 
you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities.

For example, in this thread you claimed that it had been reported that 
missile IFTUs (In-Flight Target Updates) had been hacked. I said:

 >>>> Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".

You finally responded with:

 > FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC "AP wire" -- should I go on.

Why yes, you should. When was the supposed report supposedly broadcast? 
Is the video of the report online somewhere? What link? Is there a 
transcript of the news report, or an article writeup (most news 
organizations do have online articles about news stories of significant 
interest--of which hacking in-flight missiles would certainly qualify)?

Now, if you thought that would be a sufficient reference, when it is 
self-evidently inadequately specified, and so vague as to support 
*nothing*, then you clearly didn't anticipate this obvious problem with 
your response, suggesting you don't do well in anticipating problems. 
And that's a real handicap when it comes to designing software.

Or you knew this was insufficient, but hoped I wouldn't. This goes back 
to your apparent lack of problem anticipation abilities. :-)

Or you know you can't substantiate the report, but just can't bear to 
back down in public from something you proclaimed and then fervently 
defended. It's hard, I know, I've had to do it when I've been mistaken 
on the facts about some matter.

This then illustrates an inability to plan ahead. Immediately upon my 
questioning your claim, you should have been able to see where this 
could go (and subsequently has gone) and either made sure you had 
reputably-sourced facts in hand, or immediately backpedaled. You did 
neither, and continued to mount a wholly inadequate defense of your 
questionable claim.  So not only did you apparently not realize you had 
encountered a real problem, but you were unable to foresee the potential 
consequences as it played out. Again, these are serious weaknesses when 
it comes to designing software in Ada or any other programming language.


Let me give you an example of how to properly defend a claim--from this 
same posting.

I stated that:

 >>   And while violating one's clearance would subject them to
 >> potentially serious penalties, the nature of the violation would
 >> have to be quite egregious to rise to the level of Treason.

You could have questioned me on this, that I provide some backup for it 
from a reputable source. You lacked genuine skepticism about my claim, 
and rather than demanding I back it up, you made another unsourced claim:

 > Anytime US is at war, include the ones the we are in today, the
 > charge is more likely to be Treason than any other charge.

Refuting this claim is trivial:

"In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 
federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions.

"The Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason. On October 11, 
2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason 
against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for 
videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened 
attacks on American soil."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

This is a sort of back-hand support for my claim, in that violating 
one's security clearance would have to be of an extraordinarily serious 
nature to rise to the level of treason.

It is, however, a thorough repudiation of yours, and from what's 
considered a fairly reputable source--Wikipedia. (And if you question 
that source, there are numerous links provided to the reputable sources 
for its information. See how this works?)

There are several additional claims and statements made in the rest of 
that posting which are indicative of a lack of problem recognition, 
foresight, and skeptical abilities; and a profound ignorance of how the 
aerospace and defense industry actually functions.  If you want to bring 
them up, fine, I'll address them.

But it's just the "same old same old" when it comes to dealing with your 
postings. There's so much ignorance and ineptitude in your statements 
that anything of actual value is lost in the junk.

Think before you post. If questioned, can you link or reference a 
*specific* supporting source?  If you're making a claim, and it's 
disputed, anticipate where it might end up, and prepare for that in advance.

Work hard. Think.

Marc A. Criley

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[David Thompson]

On 30 Jun 2010 21:10:06 -0000, Kulin Remailer <remailer@reece.net.au>
wrote:

> > I remember this when I was young. For some reason, students 
> > get real hung up on compile time errors.  It's like they are
> > horses bouncing around inside the gate, waiting for the door
> > to open. 
> 
> That was the questionable thinking behind a hilarious variant of PL/I
> called PL/C, Cornell University's PL/I compiler. Students just want their
> programs to compile and run, don't bother them with details like whether
> it's correct or not. Not a good assumption but...it was enough for somebody
> or some group of people to put out a pretty interesting compiler and get it
> out there in academia, circa late 70s early 80s timeframe.
> 
Earlier. My school was using it in '75, and it wasn't treated as new.
Wikipedia says it was published on in '73, and on concrete things like
that I apply fewer grains of salt to them.

> The purpose of PL/C was to take almost any input and hammer it until it
> looked like a PL/I program, compile it, and generate an executable from
> it. It certainly may not do what you intended, but by george, the damn
> thing will almost always start running. What happens next...nobody knows. 
> 
In the days of 4 or 8 hour or even longer batch turnarounds, trying to
correct errors as PL/C did, and WATFIV for FORTRAN, was useful. 
Yes, they didn't always guess right, but if you had made a few small
mistakes keypunching it might save you a day or more.

> It was hysterical to look closely at the diagnostics. I don't have a
> listing handy but I remember it would be something like
> 
> Error on line ... (note the syntax error)
> PL/C uses ....    (what PL/C replaced your erroneous statement with)
> 
> If I had a dime for every cup of coffee that went out my nose working with
> that compiler! Actually it could have been a very interesting aspect of AI
> if they had intentions in that direction but I don't think it went any
> further and I haven't seen anything like it since.
> 
My favorite was one time I was bored and gave it an empty source, and
it constructed a complete program; from vague memory something like:

* PROC statement missing inserted
* PROC label missing added
* END PROC statement missing added
* main PROC doesn't have OPTIONS added
* PROC contains no statement added
* running ...
* dummy statement executed, execution stopped

But compared to IBM's ZYX9942E Invalid construct somewhere near X 
(especially for JCL) this was manna from heaven.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[David Thompson]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:16:52 -0400, Wilson
<leon.winslow@notes.udayton.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400, <anon@anon.org> wrote:
> 
> >Plus:
> > Reference: "The Development of the C Language" by Dennis M. Ritchie
> >
> >         As for Algol, Ritchie states: "BCPL, B, and C all fit firmly
> > in the traditional procedural family typified by Fortran and Algol 60."
> > He never states that Algol or Fortran was used to build C.
> >
> >
> 
> C is a structured assembly language for the DEC PDP 11.  If you doubt  
> this, go back and examine the PDP 11 assembly language.  All of that ++  
> and -- are a standard part of the assembly language addressing modes.  In  

No they aren't. PDP-11 has only postinc and predec, and only for
addresses. C -- and B on the -7 before the -11 even existed -- has
all. The greater *use* of pointer postinc by early programmers was
likely influenced by the -11 but that's not the language.

> particular, all of those indirect references (pointers) were necessary  
> because the PDP 11 came with a 16 bit instruction set and only 8 bits were  
> allowd for the data address.   Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level  

This is nonsense. -11 instructions are 1, 2 or 3 words of 16bits.
*All* data addresses and offsets are 16bits. *Branches* have
*instruction* *offset* of 8 bits, or 6 bits for (optional?) SOB. 

> language of the time omitted pointers because almost all of their  
> addressing was direct.  (You might also want to compare C to Bliss another  

Nope. COBOL FORTRAN PL/I a68 and Pascal all had at least optional
by-reference arguments, which had to be implemented as pointer or
indirect of some kind, in the worst case (like PDP-8) by modifying
code (which was though okay and even clever in those days).
The latter three had explicit pointers, and COBOL had 'file' buffers
(and sort/merge and later comms) which were often relocated using
hidden pointers. (FORTRAN had ASSIGN for GOTO and FORMAT only.)

> sturctured assembly language for the PDP 11 and then ask which language  
> copied from where.  The two languages offer an interesting contrast.)   

BLISS was developed first for the PDP-10 and then extended to the -11
and later VAX and others. It was certainly similar to BCPL/B/C,
because all of them were designed to be close to 'the machine', but a
slightly generalized model rather than a specific machine. In fact
BLISS as a language is somewhat more capable than C because it didn't
have to be (self)compiled on the -11. 

> Richie started on the PDP 7, but quickly moved to the PDP 11 and may have  
> forgotten the details that led to the final result.
> 
> Also, before you quote Richie or any other author, you need to read a  
> peice by Isaak Asimov on how authors are the last people  to understand  
> what they did and how they did it.  <snip>

Asimov wrote quite a bit about the mysteries and vagaries of the
creative process, but that's not the same thing as technical
documentation or history. Considering that your 'facts' are provably
inconsistent with reality and Ritchie's aren't, I know who I believe.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Stephen Leake]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:

> I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer.
>
> A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical
> of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges
> you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities.
>
> <snip really excellent post>

You must be having a _really_ good weekend :).

http://xkcd.com/386/

enjoy!

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Marc A. Criley]

On 07/06/2010 06:15 AM, Stephen Leake wrote:
> "Marc A. Criley"<mcNOSPAM@mckae.com>  writes:
>
>> I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer.
>>
>> A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical
>> of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges
>> you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities.
>>
>> <snip really excellent post>
>
> You must be having a _really_ good weekend :).
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/
>
> enjoy!
>

<grin>

Marc

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:

> "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>
>> I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer.
>>
>> A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical
>> of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges
>> you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities.
>>
>> <snip really excellent post>
>
> You must be having a _really_ good weekend :).
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/
>
> enjoy!

:-)

This reminds me of a quote from Heston Blumenthal (British chef) in a
Sunday supplement -- he'd abandoned his "one-man crusade to save the
world from people who don't do things properly". Too big a target!

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <746c$4c3253ae$433a4efa$25085@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer.
>
>A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical 
>of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges 
>you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities.
>
>For example, in this thread you claimed that it had been reported that 
>missile IFTUs (In-Flight Target Updates) had been hacked. I said:
>
> >>>> Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".
>
>You finally responded with:
>
> > FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC "AP wire" -- should I go on.
>
>Why yes, you should. When was the supposed report supposedly broadcast? 
>Is the video of the report online somewhere? What link? Is there a 
>transcript of the news report, or an article writeup (most news 
>organizations do have online articles about news stories of significant 
>interest--of which hacking in-flight missiles would certainly qualify)?
>
>Now, if you thought that would be a sufficient reference, when it is 
>self-evidently inadequately specified, and so vague as to support 
>*nothing*, then you clearly didn't anticipate this obvious problem with 
>your response, suggesting you don't do well in anticipating problems. 
>And that's a real handicap when it comes to designing software.
>
>Or you knew this was insufficient, but hoped I wouldn't. This goes back 
>to your apparent lack of problem anticipation abilities. :-)
>
>Or you know you can't substantiate the report, but just can't bear to 
>back down in public from something you proclaimed and then fervently 
>defended. It's hard, I know, I've had to do it when I've been mistaken 
>on the facts about some matter.
>
>This then illustrates an inability to plan ahead. Immediately upon my 
>questioning your claim, you should have been able to see where this 
>could go (and subsequently has gone) and either made sure you had 
>reputably-sourced facts in hand, or immediately backpedaled. You did 
>neither, and continued to mount a wholly inadequate defense of your 
>questionable claim.  So not only did you apparently not realize you had 
>encountered a real problem, but you were unable to foresee the potential 
>consequences as it played out. Again, these are serious weaknesses when 
>it comes to designing software in Ada or any other programming language.
>
>
>Let me give you an example of how to properly defend a claim--from this 
>same posting.
>
>I stated that:
>
> >>   And while violating one's clearance would subject them to
> >> potentially serious penalties, the nature of the violation would
> >> have to be quite egregious to rise to the level of Treason.
>
>You could have questioned me on this, that I provide some backup for it 
>from a reputable source. You lacked genuine skepticism about my claim, 
>and rather than demanding I back it up, you made another unsourced claim:
>
> > Anytime US is at war, include the ones the we are in today, the
> > charge is more likely to be Treason than any other charge.
>
>Refuting this claim is trivial:
>
>"In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 
>federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions.
>
>"The Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason. On October 11, 
>2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason 
>against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for 
>videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened 
>attacks on American soil."
>
>-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States
>
>This is a sort of back-hand support for my claim, in that violating 
>one's security clearance would have to be of an extraordinarily serious 
>nature to rise to the level of treason.
>
>It is, however, a thorough repudiation of yours, and from what's 
>considered a fairly reputable source--Wikipedia. (And if you question 
>that source, there are numerous links provided to the reputable sources 
>for its information. See how this works?)
>
>There are several additional claims and statements made in the rest of 
>that posting which are indicative of a lack of problem recognition, 
>foresight, and skeptical abilities; and a profound ignorance of how the 
>aerospace and defense industry actually functions.  If you want to bring 
>them up, fine, I'll address them.
>
>But it's just the "same old same old" when it comes to dealing with your 
>postings. There's so much ignorance and ineptitude in your statements 
>that anything of actual value is lost in the junk.
>
>Think before you post. If questioned, can you link or reference a 
>*specific* supporting source?  If you're making a claim, and it's 
>disputed, anticipate where it might end up, and prepare for that in advance.
>
>Work hard. Think.
>
>Marc A. Criley
I believe it was also under Bush jr that a story also broke by CNN that 
Bush's people were thrown for a loop.  CNN know it first and that put 
egg on a few faces. Bush himself comment on this one.

Also, if you want to know who said that missile were hack then you do 
the research.  It's been around 6 years ago, but the information should 
still be found in print like the AP. Its just not that important to me. 
I guess I am just too old to care anymore.

Now, I never use Wikipedia for reference, to easy for someone to modify, 
Because if I check Wikipedia one day the last mod date may change by the 
next day.  An example. is a few days ago I said Algol was not used to as 
a base for Ada, because the design team examine Algol and decided to 
decline the use of Algol.  My reference was a report that is on Adaic.com 
the main reference for Ada. After that post the Wikipedia page on Ada was 
altered to say the Algol influenced Ada only hours after I make the post. 
Was it someone on this board, I am not sure but it just proves that what 
on Wikipedia can not be trusted. So, to me Wikipedia is too easy to 
modify for anyone to use for a true reference.  And most will also tell 
you believe less than 10% of what is on Wikipedia.

As for being "skeptical" I am total skeptical around here of most of this 
type of posts.  And I have found that after a few years here it just not 
worth my time in dealing with these issue or raising my blood pressure 
over it.  And what I know of the aerospace and NASA would fill volumes. I 
just do not give anyone the complete picture over the net, and in person 
must have paperwork that way I do not give any information that could 
cause harm to anyone. Because you need know who you are talking to.

Is that Skeptical enough for you! Some people are so skeptical of 
everything that you can not detect their skepticism, especially on the 
net. Because they choose not to fight, just accept you say something 
and they move on.

As for that well-known couple that was found guilty for Treason was a 
long time ago, But it kind sad and up setting that the gov't has only 
found less than 40 people. I think it should be 10.000 at least. Oh well, 
that our gov't for you.

But the new spys I was talking about were just captured a few weeks ago 
when the Pres of Russia was in Washington. And I heard about this because 
the girl a part of the spy ring or their family was making all of the news 
cast as well as the net, last week. Will she have to face the charge of 
Treason and then face death roll or a TV deal? But I leave that up to those 
whos job it is to prosecute the spy.  It important to the country but, for 
most people it just a conversion thought that will fade in a few weeks, 
unless she get the TV deal. I just hope the the AG does his job and is not 
trying to run for president in 2012 or something.

Now, like I said. Let get back to some we all can trust. Ada!

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <m2lj9owh2l.fsf@pushface.org>, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
>Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:
>
>> "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>>
>>> I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer.
>>>
>>> A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical
>>> of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges
>>> you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities.
>>>
>>> <snip really excellent post>
>>
>> You must be having a _really_ good weekend :).
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>
>> enjoy!
>
>:-)
>
>This reminds me of a quote from Heston Blumenthal (British chef) in a
>Sunday supplement -- he'd abandoned his "one-man crusade to save the
>world from people who don't do things properly". Too big a target!

Wrong Again!  Just took a day off!

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Pablo]

On Jun 30, 2:23 am, mahdert <mahd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I first started my undergraduate studies as a computer science
> major, I was forced to use ADA in an introductory course.. Mind you I
> was already familiar with C++ at that time..but after dealing with ADA
> and compilet time errors for about a year, I decided to change my
> major to mech eng..
>
> Now, after many years, I started to revisit ADA and I seem to catch on
> to it.. but I feel (i know) its mostly due to my own experience and
> maturity level..
>
> So, I have to ask your opinion.. DO you think that the push for
> universities to use ADA is a big conspiracy among academicians to kill
> the passion of comp. sci in young students who would like to become
> software engineers???? I do not see any other reason why..

I suppose you were not introduced to Ada properly. I use Ada to
develop even math algorithms, and the high level of code control and
debugging really makes me feel very comfortable with the safety/
security that I can achieve. The issue maybe is what you expect from
the language and the level of confiability between products and
requirements. Ada I should say... makes this in such a way that if you
understand your code well, you can do this very pleasantly. I'm sure
that if you insist a bit more in studying deeper Ada and its
capabilities, you surely shall change your impression about the
language.

At the universities... I'm pretty sure that there is no engineering
course in which Ada don't be (at least!) extremely useful, even for sw
eng students. So, if there is a conspiracy... it would be to form
better engineers (which is what market or academic world needs!).

Regards.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 7/6/10 9:55 PM, anon@att.net wrote:

> An example. is a few days ago I said Algol was not used to as
> a base for Ada, because the design team examine Algol and decided to
> decline the use of Algol.  My reference was a report that is on Adaic.com
> the main reference for Ada.

Yes, the reference explicitly talks about possible bases
for the new language.
In close vicinity, there is more on how the evaluations of
the existing languages including ALGOL60 were performed against
the requirements of the new language later to become Ada.
The HOLWG statement of work for each contractor to do so

  "specified that for each language requirement, the contractor was
   to determine the degree of compliance of each of the candidate
   languages, to comment on the feasibility of modifying the language
   to bring it into compliance, and to identify features in excess of
   the requirements."

That's three criteria for each language L against the requirements,

- L's degree of compliance with R,
- can L be changed to meet R,
- is L too much?

The outcome of evaluations of existing languages had positives
and negatives, the positives being that some languages could
be used as a base, whereas others must dismissed as a base---where
"base" is a defined term!  From the same place:

"``Base'' must be distinguished from languages influencing Ada."

I read this as "base" has a very specific sense here and can
easily be confused with "influence".

The same text mentions that the influences on the new language
have been manifold and are counted as contributing to the
requirements document as well (Pascal mostly contributing syntax).

A summary of the process was published by
David Fisher, in Computer, March 1978, pp. 24-33, IEEE,
reprinted in: Wasserman, Anthony I. (1980),
http://lccn.loc.gov/80083087

He summarizes as follows <quote>:

* No language satisfied the requirements so well
that it could be adopted as a common language.

* Several of the languages were sufficiently
compatible with the technical requirements so that
they could be modified to produce an acceptable
language. All of the languages in this group are
derivatives of Algol-68, Pascal, or PL/I.

* Without exception, the evaluators found all the
interim approved languages to be inappropriate as
a basis for developing a common language.

* It was the consensus of the evaluators that it
is currently possible to produce a single language
that would meet essentially all the requirements.

</quote>

Nevertheless, browsing Grau/Hill/Langmaack (1967):
"Translation of ALGOL 60", I see many things that Ada seems
to have adopted, if only because other languages and
styles of programming had been influenced by it and
have influenced Ada in turn.

For the purpose of illustration, some quotes:
"The presence of recursively defined syntactic structures
in ALGOL..."

"The method of the ``Klammergebirge''"  [bracket
mountains] versus the structural analogies in
Ada '83 Rationale, 2.2 or the Ada Comb (Riehle).
(Turning a pretty printed Ada text 90° counterclockwise
shows the same shape as a Klammergebirge, even when the
latter is introduced with parenthesized expressions;
I understand that GNAT has a recursive descent parser.)

...

So while ALGOL 60 has been dismissed as a "base" (defined term) on
which to build Ada, my understanding of all this is that there is
influence.  The wikipedia article has always listed Algo68 as
influential, and compares Ada and ALGOL60, see below.

Certainly the contractors who did the evaluations
know more?  Are there still documents or reviews in the
HOLWG/AJPO/... archives? I suspect there is a wealth of interesting
information in the evaluation reports, I guess it might even
supply for much of the work on new languages that seems
so inevitable.


> After that post the Wikipedia page on Ada was
> altered to say the Algol influenced Ada only hours after I make the post.

Which wikipedia page on Ada is this?  I checked both the version history
of the Ada entry in wikipedia and the Ada programming wikibook;
the versions from the last two months all compare Ada to ALGOL60
by mentioning features that ALGOL60 did *not* have; the paragraph
including "ALGOL60" shows no changes.


> Was it someone on this board, I am not sure but it just proves that what
> on Wikipedia can not be trusted.

Wikipedia is almost like FOX News, except that citizens
get a chance to say something about the news or its presentation
when something demands it...  :-)

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Marc A. Criley]

On 07/06/2010 02:55 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
> I believe it was also under Bush jr that a story also broke by CNN that
> Bush's people were thrown for a loop.  CNN know it first and that put
> egg on a few faces. Bush himself comment on this one.

Either A) you are making this up, or B) reporting hearsay/rumor as fact.

> Also, if you want to know who said that missile were hack then you do
> the research.

My position is that there is no reputable report stating that missile 
in-flight updates were hacked. There is no research for me to do.

I can't prove a negative, you simply need to provide one reputable 
counterexample.

I'll wait...

> Now, I never use Wikipedia for reference, to easy for someone to modify,
> Because if I check Wikipedia one day the last mod date may change by the
> next day.

A *reliable* article on Wikipedia will include reference links to 
establish its credibility. Those references can be independently checked 
and verified. I've seen no reliable links from you for *any* claim 
you've made so far.

> As for being "skeptical" I am total skeptical around here of most of this
> type of posts.

You appear to be severely lacking in skepticism about *your own* claims, 
since you follow-up a contested, unsupported claim with more unsupported 
claims.

When I present a factual claim, I either include the reference or have 
it ready if questioned.  When I espouse an opinion I note it as an 
opinion, and stand ready to debate it.

My *opinion* is that "anon" is a poser.

> And what I know of the aerospace and NASA would fill volumes.

Your postings, from which a "picture" of your knowledge, experience, and 
abilities emerges, shows no evidence of this. And based on that 
"picture", this claim is in fact contraindicated.

 > Because you need know who you are talking to.

That's true..."anon".

Marc A. Criley
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marc+a+criley+-information

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon]

In <beadd$4c33c62e$433a4efa$30251@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>On 07/06/2010 02:55 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
>> I believe it was also under Bush jr that a story also broke by CNN that
>> Bush's people were thrown for a loop.  CNN know it first and that put
>> egg on a few faces. Bush himself comment on this one.
>
>Either A) you are making this up, or B) reporting hearsay/rumor as fact.
>
>> Also, if you want to know who said that missile were hack then you do
>> the research.
>
>My position is that there is no reputable report stating that missile 
>in-flight updates were hacked. There is no research for me to do.
>
>I can't prove a negative, you simply need to provide one reputable 
>counterexample.
>
>I'll wait...
>
>> Now, I never use Wikipedia for reference, to easy for someone to modify,
>> Because if I check Wikipedia one day the last mod date may change by the
>> next day.
>
>A *reliable* article on Wikipedia will include reference links to 
>establish its credibility. Those references can be independently checked 
>and verified. I've seen no reliable links from you for *any* claim 
>you've made so far.
>
>> As for being "skeptical" I am total skeptical around here of most of this
>> type of posts.
>
>You appear to be severely lacking in skepticism about *your own* claims, 
>since you follow-up a contested, unsupported claim with more unsupported 
>claims.
>
>When I present a factual claim, I either include the reference or have 
>it ready if questioned.  When I espouse an opinion I note it as an 
>opinion, and stand ready to debate it.
>
>My *opinion* is that "anon" is a poser.
>
>> And what I know of the aerospace and NASA would fill volumes.
>
>Your postings, from which a "picture" of your knowledge, experience, and 
>abilities emerges, shows no evidence of this. And based on that 
>"picture", this claim is in fact contraindicated.
>
> > Because you need know who you are talking to.
>
>That's true..."anon".
>
>Marc A. Criley
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marc+a+criley+-information


Since you have not proven, what I have said is false and at the same 
time raise the level to a personal attack you have from your begining 
post on this thread you are
"proclaimed your Defeat."  

Most people will tell you, you can attack the topic or the detail of 
that topic but never attach the messenger because that how to losing 
battle. And after making personal attack people stop listen to the attacker.

Now denying what I said and starting a personal attach you are saying 
that I too close to the actual truth for your comfort and by your 
action you have let the enemy know it.

As for the one web site address you gave comes from the military which 
by design the military is bias to mislead the enemy. Which says the 
military wants the enemy to watch their left hand so they will not see 
that right cross of coming.

My source came from the watchdog of the US gov't aka the press which 
just restated what the press briefing that the gov't made said.  Now, 
the press is the only watchdog that the citizen of the US have to 
insure that the gov't does not become corrupt and harm the citizen 
they represent. And if they lie or misdirect the truth such as CBS's 
Dan Rather did they will find themselves out of a job and may be in 
some case the press company may be fined to the point that they may 
have to close shop.

Then there the people that either visit this newgroup or post.  
The group that post are made up of students, professors, programmers 
both in the public and private sectors, companies that provide 
Ada compilers as well as GCC maintainers.  Then there are the 
curious that would like to ask a question from time to time.  Then 
there is others who just visit and that can include the entire world. 
Some of these people are good and some are bad but everyone should 
treat all people as good one until they make an attack. And then the 
reply is only to defend oneself.

Now Simon Wright and myself have be at odds from time to time for 
around 5 years. I disagree with some things he says and he also 
disagree with me.  Good, people can disagree from time to time and 
that does not make them bad.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Marc A. Criley]

On 07/07/2010 07:23 PM, anon@att.net wrote:
><various things>

Anon,

I've made no personal attacks on you. While I have stated that I don't 
think you're a very good Ada designer or programmer, I clearly spelled 
out my reasons for that belief. Software design requires planning ahead, 
problem analysis, and skepticism about one's own and other's material 
and efforts. Your posts--throughout comp.lang.ada--show you clearly 
lacking in all three aspects, which bodes ill for the quality of your 
software skills.

I completely agree that making personal attacks is the refuge of those 
without valid arguments, which is why I don't do that, or go ad hominem, 
or guilt-by-association, or make false analogies, etc. But drawing 
conclusions about a person's abilities from the evidence they've posted 
and their ability (or lack thereof) to mount a valid argument or defense 
is simply how humans go about estimating the credibility, abilities, and 
trustworthiness of others. (Head's up: you're not doing well.)

You're saying that I haven't proved what you said is false. I think you 
need to go back and reread my responses. You claimed missile in-flight 
updates had been hacked and it was widely reported on the news. No, it 
wasn't, you haven't cited a single specific report from a reputable 
source for that claim--and all it takes is _one_ to prove me wrong. (I 
did look, and I couldn't find any either, not even from DISreputable 
sources :-) You claimed that Treason was the most common charge leveled 
against those who violated their security clearances. Again, no, I 
merely had to refer to the *first* Google link found using the keywords 
"US treason convictions" ("List of people convicted of treason 
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), which took me all of 10 seconds to 
conceive and execute, to verify that was a false claim as well.

Believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Claiming something 
is true doesn't make it true. Repeatedly asserting something is true 
doesn't make it true. Refusing to back away from a claim proven false 
doesn't make it true.

The comp.lang.ada newsgroup has long been an excellent gathering place 
for both Ada fans and those who have questions, and its regular denizens 
have always supported it as a robust and respectful place for questions, 
debate, news, and community support. But those who come here to troll, 
to have someone do their homework done for them, to make baldly false 
statements about the language, its applications, and the world in which 
it operates will get smacked down. The signal-to-noise ratio is very 
high in this group, and it has to be actively maintained to stay that 
way. (Comp.lang.ada has been this way for as long as I've been in it, 
and I just checked and found what I think was my first post--from early 
1995!)

Debate can be a little rough at times, and I've been on the receiving 
end of it, not all of it undeserved 
(http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/beb0b7471c6440e3/ca3db59dd03d8ad1. 
I'll admit that some of my responses in that thread were a tad 
intemperate, but I was younger then, it takes muuuuuch more to rattle me 
now :-)

The thing is that debate can be vigorous, and in those cases one needs 
to be knowledgeable, be prepared, and be credible. Simon Wright, Dmitry 
Kazakov, Pascal Obry, Ludovic Brenta, amongst many, many others have 
demonstrated in this newsgroup their knowledge of Ada, its use, and the 
thought behind it. They, again along with many others, make credible, 
reasoned arguments for their technical opinions, which may even 
contradict other newsgroup participants' from time to time. Their 
postings demonstrate that they've got the knowledge, the experience, and 
the technical chops to have _earned_ the credibility they possess on 
this forum.

You, on the other hand, have made provably false claims, made personal 
attacks on other members 
(http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/ebdc5ed511896a0/a1e3ffc9fcaaf6a7?lnk=gst&q=bauhaus#a1e3ffc9fcaaf6a7, 
"Discussion subject changed to 'To new TROLL named Georg Bauhaus' by 
anon"--sorry George :-), and claim "volumes of knowledge" but refuse to 
back it up with actual code, publications, or any other materials, 
citing "paperwork" that prevents you from doing so. But Simon, Dmitry, 
Pascal, me (http://www.mckae.com, http://sourceforge.net/projects/evex), 
and many others put our work out on on the Web for anyone to access, 
download, hopefully put to good use, and make their own determination 
about our competence and capabilities.

I have no personal animosity towards you--you like Ada, which always 
grants some points in your favor. But I have no patience for 
foolishness, ignorance, and hubris, especially when it is proclaimed and 
defended as something other than what it is. Comp.lang.ada is a 
wonderful gathering place with great information and great professional 
people, and there is little tolerance for those who would damage it.

Marc A. Criley

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:57:52 +0200, <anon@anon.org> a écrit:
>> Pascal/Ada/Module2/  80's. The golden age (algorithms+data
I do not know “module2” but I know Modula2 (with an A) ;)

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:57:52 +0200, <anon@anon.org> a écrit:
> C/C++/D    -- from 74 .. Now.
>            -- "D" is the newest version replaces C and C++
>               "C++" is wide spread in all classes. C/C++ slowly
>               replace all other older lang "Cobol" and "Fortran"
Well, to be exact, it even appears C is slowly replacing C++

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:11:41 +0200, <anon@anon.org> a écrit:
>> Web and/or GUI (but not native CPU) programming is mainstream.
>
> First, Web designer are like C programmers a dime will get you a dozen.
> Plus, the next generation web language will use gui imaging and voice
> instead of html or any other written lang. That what I meant by the gui.
For Web applications, there is simply *no choices*.

Note: unlike stated in an above post, Python is not involved in web  
application (just at server level, and among many others). No client side  
web application uses Python, this is always JavaScript.

Some people aware of troubles with this language, use JSLint, which tries  
to make JavaScript a bit more reliable.
http://www.jslint.com/

The next generation on the web, will still be the same with higher version  
numbers: HTML5+JavaScript+CSS3. This is unlikely to be replaced, due to  
the heavy background of existing websites (some being rather old) and due  
to browsers.

There use to be an attempt to switch to a typed JavaScript, but this  
failed. This explain why the above says HTML5 and CSS3, while still  
JavaScript (always the same as before). The part which evolves here, is  
mostly API (the DOM), not JavaScript.

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:29:50 +0200, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com>  
a écrit:
> Amazing. RR Software sold large numbers of Ada compilers to schools and
> students from the mid 1980's until GNAT put us out of that business,
Oh shit. And what now ?

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:43:26 +0200, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> a  
écrit:
>> I knew what you meant by "IP". But:
>>
>>     1. Once a missle is launched the any wired "IP" is no long a valid
>>        port.
>
> I should have also pointed out that I was talking about the missile
> launch computer talking to the target tracking computer, *not* about
> missile control computer to missile. And indeed in the system I'm
> working on IP *is* the comms stack for this purpose.
Do you know an online schematic view of all a kind-of system ?

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:29:17 +0200, Colin Paul Gloster  
<Colin_Paul_Gloster@acm.org> a écrit:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Nasser M. Abbasi sent:
> |------------|
> |"[..]       |
> |            |
> |Python now ?|
> |            |
> |[..]"       |
> |------------|
>
> Recently the only course language for the Department of Physics
> (though possibly lectured by the Department of Computer Science) of
> the University of Coimbra was Python.
Funny I have pointed the same phenomenon on a french forum just yesterday.  
Mostly the same in france.

But I do not think this is a too much bad thing, as this is not a kind of  
the worst and this may be useful where quick algorithmic modeling is  
required. Yes, there may be better choices, but the purpose of  
Biology/Physic/etc students, is not to pass a Computer Science degree.

I just wish this is not use when proof-by-model is expected (as this is  
sometime done in Astronomy to explore theories). I hope then some more  
checkable systems are used just to ensure the system did not created wrong  
results.

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:05:50 +0200, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> a écrit:
> The compiler is your friend- only except when it
> presents a 'bug box'. ;-)
You got it (about the compile-time bug-box, especially when you do not  
have any other choice for the compiler)

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Simon Wright]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Le Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:43:26 +0200, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
> a écrit:
>>> I knew what you meant by "IP". But:
>>>
>>>     1. Once a missle is launched the any wired "IP" is no long a valid
>>>        port.
>>
>> I should have also pointed out that I was talking about the missile
>> launch computer talking to the target tracking computer, *not* about
>> missile control computer to missile. And indeed in the system I'm
>> working on IP *is* the comms stack for this purpose.
> Do you know an online schematic view of all a kind-of system ?

Not sure what you mean here -- but, I'm quite sure there's no on-line
schematic of this system! and doubt there are of any similar sort of
system, either. But I expect to be corrected ...

Re: ADA made me hate programming

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 887 bytes --]

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?= expounded in
news:op.vhrctxvuxmjfy8@garhos: 

> Le Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:11:41 +0200, <anon@anon.org> a �crit:
>>> Web and/or GUI (but not native CPU) programming is mainstream.
>>
>> First, Web designer are like C programmers a dime will get you a
>> dozen 
> .
>> Plus, the next generation web language will use gui imaging and voice
>> instead of html or any other written lang. That what I meant by the
>> gu 
> i.
> For Web applications, there is simply *no choices*.
...
> Some people aware of troubles with this language, use JSLint, which
> tries  to make JavaScript a bit more reliable.
> http://www.jslint.com/

Here's a project for someone ambitious and energetic:

Produce/modify an Ada compiler that produces Javascript 
as the low level compiled output (vs Java byte code,
for example).  Ada in, Javascript out..

Warren

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1320 bytes --]

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?= expounded in 
news:op.vhrjgze1xmjfy8@garhos:

> Le Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:05:50 +0200, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> a �crit:
>> The compiler is your friend- only except when it
>> presents a 'bug box'. ;-)

> You got it (about the compile-time bug-box, especially when you do not  
> have any other choice for the compiler)

It can be a fun exercise to see what is provoking the
bug box. While it is best to report those, I do find that
the present reporting "process" is too time consuming.
I find it is quicker and eaiser to find a work-around
and hope that the bug has already been reported.

Only as a last resort, I'll report it.  They need to 
make that process easier somehow. For example, allow
the user to just send all the *.adb and *.ads files
used. 

Instead they insist on *ada files and don't want
anything that is not involved.  Gnat tries to name
the involved sources, but I have found that this isn't 
reliable - resulting in more futzing around.

I understand the reasons for these things but this 
creates a lot of fussing for the bug submitter. 
The harder it is to submit a bug, the more it discourages
submissions. There were some other things but I 
don't recall them now.  By the time you've submitted
the report, 2-3 hours have wizzed by.

Warren

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:51:34 +0200, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> a écrit:
>> You got it (about the compile-time bug-box, especially when you do not
>> have any other choice for the compiler)
>
> It can be a fun exercise to see what is provoking the
> bug box.
Except when this ends to understand there will be no good workaround and  
you will have to change many thing (especially do not like it if what has  
to be changed.... is at the interface level)

> While it is best to report those, I do find that
> the present reporting "process" is too time consuming.
> I find it is quicker and eaiser to find a work-around
> and hope that the bug has already been reported.
>
> Only as a last resort, I'll report it.  They need to
> make that process easier somehow. For example, allow
> the user to just send all the *.adb and *.ads files
> used.
I see a good reasons for that: this avoid local configuration or project  
layout to interfere. This is just like when an application hang for some  
user special configuration reason which are not of the application  
responsibility and you have to be sure of that.

Also, just think bug repository may be actively feed: just try to imagine  
yourself at the other side of this stream. “Ouch!” you will say.

I agree this is tedious (I have multiple bug reports pending because I am  
not sure of some submission requirement details), but just think of it as  
a little fee you give back (no one enjoy to b a slave). I suppose  
commercial support may be more relaxing regarding how bug reports are  
received (this probably may even be the source of a whole application with  
ugly make files and etc).

> Instead they insist on *ada files and don't want
> anything that is not involved.  Gnat tries to name
> the involved sources, but I have found that this isn't
> reliable - resulting in more futzing around.
Yes, that is why I prefer this: “remove a component, see if the bug still  
express, remove a component, see if the bug ...”, until I can get  
something small enough and as much as possible free of any external  
dependencies or external libraries (if needed, you may also create an  
local extract of library dependencies). This is good not just in the  
eventuality of a bug report, but also for yourself if ever you like to  
archive sources exposing bugs for you own regression tests or just to not  
forget what you already learned about the bugs of a given application.



-- 
* 3 lines of concise statements is readable, 10 pages of concise  
statements is unreadable ;
* 3 lines of verbose statements may looks unuseful, 10 pages of verbose  
statements will never looks too much pedantic

Re: [Ada] made me hate programming

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2495 bytes --]

=?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= expounded in
news:op.vhwgr3ovule2fv@garhos: 

> Le Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:51:34 +0200, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> a
> écrit: 
>>> You got it (about the compile-time bug-box, especially when you do
>>> no 
> t
>>> have any other choice for the compiler)
>>
>> It can be a fun exercise to see what is provoking the
>> bug box.
> Except when this ends to understand there will be no good workaround
> and  you will have to change many thing (especially do not like it if
> what has  to be changed.... is at the interface level)

I know - but so far I've been successful. I find often
I provoke bug-oxes by doing something grossly wrong 
(like compile a non-gnatprepped source) or I do something
unusual but otherwise legal.  When the later, it is 
usually just a mater of making the code "more normal"
than "elegant".
 
>> While it is best to report those, I do find that
..
> Also, just think bug repository may be actively feed: 

If so, then my bug(s) are probably covered.

> just try to
> imagine  yourself at the other side of this stream. “Ouch!” you
> will say. 

I don't say ouch- I do understand their pov. However,
if you make something too costly/difficult, then you're
going to fewer contributions, no matter how well intentioned. \
It's a just matter of compromise at best and 
I just feel the compromise is a bit one sided.

> I agree this is tedious (I have multiple bug reports pending because I
> am  not sure of some submission requirement details), 
------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's another problem..

> of it as  a little fee you give back...

Nobody minds a "little", but IMO it's too much.  My
hobby time is real short, and I don't have time for
"filling out forms" (to use an analogy).

>> Instead they insist on *ada files and don't want
>> anything that is not involved.  Gnat tries to name
>> the involved sources, but I have found that this isn't
>> reliable - resulting in more futzing around.

> Yes, that is why I prefer this: “remove a component, see if the bug
> still  express, remove a component, see if the bug ...”, until I can
> get  something small enough and as much as possible free of any
> external  dependencies or external libraries (if needed, you may also
> create an  local extract of library dependencies). 

The problem with this on a large project, is that this is
a time intensive process.  I prefer to just move on, if
a work-around exists.

Warren

Reporting bugs in GNAT (was: [Ada] made me hate programming)

[Ludovic Brenta]

Warren writes on comp.lang.ada:
> It can be a fun exercise to see what is provoking the bug box. While
> it is best to report those, I do find that the present reporting
> "process" is too time consuming.  I find it is quicker and eaiser to
> find a work-around and hope that the bug has already been reported.

While I understand your point of view, your attitude is exactly the one
that ensures your bug cannot possibly be fixed, ever.  There are too few
Adaists to rely on someone else to report bugs for you.  The "many pairs
of eyes" theorem does not apply to our small community, unfortunately.

> Only as a last resort, I'll report it.

OK but that's another mistake.  If reporting a bug is your last line of
defense, this means you're pretty much cornered and have become
dependent on someone else understanding your problem, implementing a fix
and delivering the fix to you.  This leaves bad feelings on both sides:
you feel neglected, and they feel your're pressuring them to work for
you in emergency mode, for free.

> They need to make that process easier somehow. For example, allow the
> user to just send all the *.adb and *.ads files used.

To paraphrase John F. Kennedy: "ask not what GCC can do for you; ask
what you can do for GCC".

I suggest that if you invest a couple of hours of your precious hobby
time on just *one* compiler bug to properly isolate it in a reproducer,
you will not only gain a lot of insight into the process but you will
also deserve, and obtain, a lot of goodwill from the GCC maintainers
(not only those at AdaCore, but also enlightened enthusiasts like Sam
Tardieu and Laurent Guerby, to name but two).  This might lead to a fix
sooner than you think.

> Instead they insist on *ada files and don't want anything that is not
> involved.  Gnat tries to name the involved sources, but I have found
> that this isn't reliable - resulting in more futzing around.

That's a small issue with file naming.  Once you've done it once, you
can do it again quite easily.

> I understand the reasons for these things but this creates a lot of
> fussing for the bug submitter.  The harder it is to submit a bug, the
> more it discourages submissions. There were some other things but I
> don't recall them now.  By the time you've submitted the report, 2-3
> hours have wizzed by.

Correct.  Those 2-3 hours are time that you give back to the people who
gave you millions of hours of expert work to produce GCC in the first
place.  They are a small price to pay, and you can also see them as an
investment.  Those 2-3 hours of your time will pay back handsomely in
the form of fixes and goodwill.

If you really cannot spend those 2-3 hours, then I suggest you spend
just 1 hour and submit the bug nevertheless.  Ignore comments from Arno
saying that the reproducer is too big.  Ask for advice here on
comp.lang.ada.  Someone might be interested enough to reduce the
reproducer for you.  I've done that in the past myself, resulting in a
quick fix after that; see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR29015 to see one example.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT (was: [Ada] made me hate programming)

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:25:01 +0200, Ludovic Brenta  
<ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:
> I've done that in the past myself, resulting in a
> quick fix after that; see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR29015 to see one example.
Submited 2008-04-09, fixed 2008-04-16. Not more than a week.


As you are there: do you know the limit number of lines for a bug  
reproducer (my main matter actually) ? And is it OK to have mixed language  
like Ada and a bit of C ? And is it OK to submit a gnatchop file the same  
as AdaCore seems to requires ? (I feel to remember I read it somewhere)



-- 
* 3 lines of concise statements is readable, 10 pages of concise  
statements is unreadable ;
* 3 lines of verbose statements may looks unuseful, 10 pages of verbose  
statements will never looks too much pedantic

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
> Le Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:25:01 +0200, Ludovic Brenta
> <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:
>> I've done that in the past myself, resulting in a
>> quick fix after that; see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR29015 to see one example.
> Submited 2008-04-09, fixed 2008-04-16. Not more than a week.
>
>
> As you are there: do you know the limit number of lines for a bug
> reproducer (my main matter actually) ?

There is no such limit.  But if the bug trigger is buried in 10_000
lines, nobody will have the energy to hunt it down.  In my experience,
all reproducers can be narrowed down to 100 lines or less.

> And is it OK to have mixed language like Ada and a bit of C ?

I don't think so, unless the bug is specifically about interfacing Ada
with C.  In most cases, I'd think that a "bit of C" would get in the way
rather than help.

> And is it OK to submit a gnatchop file the same as AdaCore seems to
> requires ? (I feel to remember I read it somewhere)

I don't think this is a hard requirement either.  A gnatchop file may
make it a little easier for people to compile your test case but you can
also submit separate files as attachments.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT (was: [Ada] made me hate programming)

[Warren]

Ludovic Brenta expounded in news:87hbilt6ua.fsf_-_@ludovic-brenta.org:

> Warren writes on comp.lang.ada:
>> It can be a fun exercise to see what is provoking the bug box. While
>> it is best to report those, I do find that the present reporting
>> "process" is too time consuming.  I find it is quicker and eaiser to
>> find a work-around and hope that the bug has already been reported.
> 
> While I understand your point of view, your attitude is exactly the one
> that ensures your bug cannot possibly be fixed, ever.  

I understand your point also, but this statement of yours
is not absolutely true:

In a recent case, I did not "locate" my bug. After wasting 3 hrs
to submit it, it was closed with "already known" or some
such. Presumably there are other unsubmitted bugs in the same
category. ;-)

>> Only as a last resort, I'll report it.
> 
> OK but that's another mistake.  If reporting a bug is your last line of
> defense, this means you're pretty much cornered and have become
> dependent on someone else understanding your problem, implementing 
> a fix
> and delivering the fix to you.  

No, no, no, no. I find me a work-around. If I can't, I _will_ make
the effort (or when the work-around is ugly). If I think the problem 
is one that really needs to be fixed (for the greater good), then
I _will_ take the time. But it's a judgement call, and I haven't
encountered many in that category, thankfully.

> I suggest that if you invest a couple of hours of your precious hobby
> time on just *one* compiler bug to properly isolate it in a reproducer,
> you will not only gain a lot of insight into the process but you will
> also deserve, and obtain, a lot of goodwill from the GCC maintainers
> (not only those at AdaCore, but also enlightened enthusiasts like Sam
> Tardieu and Laurent Guerby, to name but two).  This might lead to a fix
> sooner than you think.

I think the reality of the situation is that they already get a boat load 
of problem reports. Since the supply is plentiful, they don't have to be 
concerned with how easy the input process is.  That's the bottom line.

I am contributing to open source in my own way (I have several projects 
up on SF for example). I started the APQ project, which I see is still 
used. If I have to trade all or most of my free time to contribute to 
gcc, then I might as well give up my projects and join the gcc team (by 
then I'd rather pick up a guitar). In these kinds of things consequently, 
there are judgement calls involved. 

No one answer fits all.

>> Instead they insist on *ada files and don't want anything that is not
>> involved.  Gnat tries to name the involved sources, but I have found
>> that this isn't reliable - resulting in more futzing around.
> 
> That's a small issue with file naming.  Once you've done it once, you
> can do it again quite easily.

It's not just that, but deciding which of hundreds of sources to send 
etc. It's the "list" of their requirements before they will even look at 
it. If the list was shorter, the process would be easier.

I tell ya what- if I decide to submit a new bug at some point, I'll 
invest the time to automate much of that. Apart from eliminating non-
participatory source modules one by one and describing the problem, I 
suspect much of it can with a bit of effort be scripted.

But that will have to wait for a rainy day.

Warren

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT (was: [Ada] made me hate programming)

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:32:55 +0200, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> a écrit:
> I tell ya what- if I decide to submit a new bug at some point, I'll
> invest the time to automate much of that. Apart from eliminating non-
> participatory source modules one by one and describing the problem, I
> suspect much of it can with a bit of effort be scripted.

An example of such script would need to be exposed to prove it is really  
possible.

This is not only about modules, this is also about construct in modules.  
And about the interpretation of the result either at compile time or  
runtime ? A script to automate this task would seems broken all the time  
(the biggest bug of the bug repository).

Only humans can do that (at least at the date this is written)

-- 
* 3 lines of concise statements is readable, 10 pages of concise  
statements is unreadable ;
* 3 lines of verbose statements may looks unuseful, 10 pages of verbose  
statements will never looks too much pedantic

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT (was: [Ada] made me hate programming)

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?= expounded in
news:op.vhyd38dsxmjfy8@garhos: 

> Le Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:32:55 +0200, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> a �crit:
>> I tell ya what- if I decide to submit a new bug at some point, I'll
>> invest the time to automate much of that. Apart from eliminating non-
>> participatory source modules one by one and describing the problem, I
>> suspect much of it can with a bit of effort be scripted.
> 
> An example of such script would need to be exposed to prove it is
> really  possible.

You're missing the point. There is a lot of mechanical aspects
of copying your current source directories to a staging area, 
eliminating a lot of crap you can't send ("make clean" for 
example), trimming out documentation, turning *.ad[sb] into
*.ada files etc. and more. Even a template for the bug description
could be started.

None of this grunt work requires intelligence.

Warren

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT

[Simon Wright]

Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> writes:

> turning *.ad[sb] into *.ada files etc

At least once in the past (June 2009) I've had success sending a
reproducer in a ZIP file.

And if you want to report a GPR-related problem you're going to have to
send the GPR!

Can you remind me where the instruction to cat all the .ad? files so
they can be gnatchop'd comes from? I know it doesn't apply to supported
users (of course AdaCore might prefer it, but the customer is always
right ...)

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT

[Florian Weimer]

* Simon Wright:

> Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> turning *.ad[sb] into *.ada files etc
>
> At least once in the past (June 2009) I've had success sending a
> reproducer in a ZIP file.
>
> And if you want to report a GPR-related problem you're going to have to
> send the GPR!
>
> Can you remind me where the instruction to cat all the .ad? files so
> they can be gnatchop'd comes from?

Some wrote it down about eight years ago:

  <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#gnat>

It's still a reasonable requirement.  It's really difficult to argue
about compiler bugs when people only post the parts they think are
relevant, or upload stuff with their own build system and expect that
everybody understands that as well as they do.

Re: Reporting bugs in GNAT

[Simon Wright]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * Simon Wright:
>
>> Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> turning *.ad[sb] into *.ada files etc
>>
>> At least once in the past (June 2009) I've had success sending a
>> reproducer in a ZIP file.
>>
>> And if you want to report a GPR-related problem you're going to have to
>> send the GPR!
>>
>> Can you remind me where the instruction to cat all the .ad? files so
>> they can be gnatchop'd comes from?
>
> Some wrote it down about eight years ago:
>
>   <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#gnat>
>
> It's still a reasonable requirement.  It's really difficult to argue
> about compiler bugs when people only post the parts they think are
> relevant, or upload stuff with their own build system and expect that
> everybody understands that as well as they do.

In terms of the info needed, I can only agree! It was more a question of
the presentation.