Re: Only one Ada vendor?

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

<Sloan.Kohler@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1192806306.892546.73350@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Whatever the case, I'm concerned that the number of viable Ada vendors
> seems to be shrinking. The benefits of language standardization are
> greatly diminished if only one vendor bothers to support the standard.
>
It is certainly not in the best interest of the language for there to be only
one compiler option.  However, the economics of Ada seem to govern
the support it receives from compiler publishers.

With the apparent decline in the number of Ada projects worldwide, and
the atttitude among some of the most influential DoD contractors that Ada
usage is deprecated in favor of C++ and Java, where is the incentive for Ada
compiler vendors and tool builders.

Ada continues to be a superior language design for most kinds of software, but
the lack of interfaces to common environments and operating systems, the lack
of tools, and the absence of a customer (e.g., the DoD) with an interest in the
language contributes to its decline as an option.

My role for the last few years has put me closer to the DoD decision-makers,
and I continue to encounter the widespread opinion that Ada is no longer of
interest.   There are, of course, more intelligent, better informed people in 
the
DoD and they understand the importance of Ada in weapon systems development.
But, increasingly, the language is not even in the repertoire of anyone who
graduated from a computer science program in the last fifteen or so years.

When Lockheed-Martin took the ridiculous decision to abandon Ada in favor
of C++ for some of our key weapon systems, the economic incentive for
building Ada compilers and tools declined substantially.    The people who
made this decision were generally pretty ignorant about Ada.  However,
the decision was made, to a large extent, on the perceived cost of using
the language -- training, compiler licensing, support contracts -- not just
a result of their monumental stupidity about the benefits of the language.

I attended a video-telecast briefing to DoD software professionals a few
years ago that was delivered by a then prominent Navy Admiral.  At one
point during his talk he came to, "And now let me say a few words about
Ada."   He went on to lament the experience of Ada and praise the fact
that, with the abandomment of the mandate, "we can now put that disaster
behind us..." His version of the Ada story included derision of the language
including citing a few "...amusing if they were not so serious ..." issues
with the language.   "We hired the best instructors we could for the
Academy [USNA] and even they couldn't get anyone to understand
the language ..."   My quotes are from memory, but pretty close.

By the time he got through with his assessment of Ada, anyone in the 
teleconference
who knew nothing of Ada would have been completely turned-off by it.

We someone need to get Ada on the scoreboard again.  We need some kind
of education process to correct the misinformation about it that is so
widespread.   There was a time when I thought this was a responsibility of
the Ada compiler publishers and tool developers.   Now, I realize that
those most of those compiler publishers (e.g., IBM-Rational) don't care
whether Ada continues to exist or not.   They will continue to make money
without Ada.

So, where does the educational process originate?   Who has the deep-pockets
necessary to make it happen.   The money wasted on meaningless advertising
after the advent of Ada 95 is a lesson learned.  No one wants to hear how
good it is.   In the minds of most software professionals, Java is just as good,
or good enough.   One major weapon system development is using so-called
"real-time" Java instead of Ada.   My objections are perceived as the ranting
of an Ada bigot.  They humor me, though, instead of deriding me.

Where is the flurry of articles and press releases in the computer press and
the general press about the new ISO standard Ada 2005?   No where I have
looked.   Who has written a good article about Ada 2005 for any DoD
publication?    Not very many.    Where are the books on Ada 2005? Only
one that I know of.   I had hoped to update Ada Distilled for 2005 standard
by now, but Ada is now a very small fraction of my time and I simply don't
write Ada code day-by-day as I did ten years ago.

Even so, I still get email about Ada Distilled.   Very little of it is from U.S.
or European correspondents, but from other places in the world.   I even
received an invitation to teach from it in Tehran (which I declined). 
Apparently,
they are using Ada for something or other in Iran.   I have no idea what
they are doing with Ada in Iran, but it was interesting to learn of their 
interest.

We need to get Ada visible again.   It is not useful that Ariane V was 
programmed
in Ada and that it keeps getting brought up as an example of a weakness in
the language.   We need to get information to the computer professionals
about the successes of the language.  We need to get high-profile projects
made public.  And we need more articles in the press about its successes,
and about Ada 2005.

I had a very good initiative started using JGNAT at NPS, where I am now
teaching.  The enthusiasm ran high, and a success with JGNAT could have
reversed a lot of the attitudes among the faculty.  AdaCore withdrew support
for JGNAT, and it turned out to be inadequate for the purpose we intended.
AdaCore might have been able to fix the problem, but chose, because of
economic considerations, to abandon it entirely.   I can report that the
incentive to use an Ada-based tool vanished very quickly among those
faculty members who were originally enthusiastic about JGNAT.

This is similar, in some respects to the DoD's decision to abandon Ada
right after the advent of Ada 95.   "Abandon?"    No.  That was not
the intent of Secretary Paige's memo.  But that was the interpretation
within the DoD.  At the time, I wrote in my JOOP Column that it was a
lot like "grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory," not an original phrase,
but appropriate, I thought.

I continue to believe that Ada is the correct choice for most of the software
we include in safety-critical and weapon systems design.   However, I am
a person of little influence.  I no longer have a voice in the press, and I am
constrained by what I can say in the military community.

If no one takes up the challenge to educate the public and the computing
community, and if we continue to simply rely on the more intelligent
customers making the choice of Ada instead of being more proactive, the
language is certainly doomed to extinction.   As of the present, I see no
one making  an effective case for Ada.   A few trade shows will not make
it happen.  We need a more pronounced effort.

Richard Riehle