Re: Why C for the Open Source Movement?

[Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>]

zeta_no wrote:
> Hi to all,
> 
> Can someone explain me the reasons why the main actors of the Open
> Source community didn't choose Ada instead of C to write the core
> elements of their systems (Linux, Hurd, FreeBSD etc...) and most of the
> critical applications that come with it if the main goal was to provide
> a real alternative to the "proprietary clan".  Would it have reduce
> significantly bug list for all devel. projects and assure much more
> reliable applications?  Isn't the Unix tradition based on well crafted
> design mecanisms?  Does its traditional ways became so heavy to prevent
> adaptation and or renewal of its philosophy through time?
> 
> Hope I do not make a troll of me,
> 
> olivier h.
> 

All of those projects started before there was a freely available Ada 
compiler.

In the case of someting like the GNU project itself, when Stallman 
started the GNU project, Ada 83 was not even really out yet and 
certainly not in a position where it was stable.


There is a lot of inertia to overcome once one starts an OS project. 
Switching the Linux kernel or Hurd or anything else of that scale to Ada 
just for the sake of the better language is probably not the best idea.

Ignoring all of the forking and grubling that it would create for a 
moment at the very least one would have to agree that it could be years 
before you got back to the same level of stability as the original kernel.

One could argue that it could be done piecewise but the problem with 
that is if you start small now you have to justify pulling in some small 
Ada runtime into the kernel just to support some particular module and 
again it does not seem to make sense.

There are lots of "silver bullet" languages out there that have cool 
features (e.g. Python) but still no one has tried to port the kernel to 
python.