From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6b777a2e4fd60559 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1192806306.892546.73350@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Only one Ada vendor? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.126.233 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.net 1193344533 ST000 70.134.126.233 (Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:35:33 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:35:33 EDT Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: TSUGW^WETZSMB_DX]BCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^BVNDQUBLNTC@AWZWDXZXQ[K\FFSKCVM@F_N_DOBWVWG__LG@VVOIPLIGX\\BU_B@\P\PFX\B[APHTWAHDCKJF^NHD[YJAZMCY_CWG[SX\Y]^KC\HSZRWSWKGAY_PC[BQ[BXAS\F\\@DMTLFZFUE@\VL Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:35:33 GMT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2571 Date: 2007-10-25T20:35:33+00:00 List-Id: 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