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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Natasha Kerensikova Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada platforms and pricing, was: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 07:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <255b51cd-b23f-4413-805a-9fea3c70d8b2@googlegroups.com> <5ebe316d-cd84-40fb-a983-9f953f205fef@googlegroups.com> <2100734262424129975.133931laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <857442918424729589.090275laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 07:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="76a49b86bc3e16725b7cfca3d85cb4c8"; logging-data="8098"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19740HyjC5Sqwcc25iNShyP" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (FreeBSD) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ou43NaHQ9iqx/aWA3zTXEk262+w= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20446 Date: 2014-06-19T07:53:41+00:00 List-Id: On 2014-06-18, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 06/18/2014 12:09 AM, Natasha Kerensikova wrote: >> >> And has been already pointed out (IIRC by Jacob Sparre Andersen), the >> "2% argument" doesn't really counter that, since compiler avilability >> probably drives away a significant part of those 2%ters. >> >> Myself, for example. I'm here only because a few years ago, sheer luck >> made me stumble upon wikipedia page for Steelman requirements, and >> because GNAT-AUX made Ada available freely on my platform of choice >> (FreeBSD/intel, which I believe to be a comparatively easy target). > > This is more likely the reason many software engineers don't use Ada: they are > not aware of it. I would certainly help a lot to have better Ada advertising, but that is easier and faster to fix than deep technical hurdles. > You stumbled upon Ada by accident; how many others who would > use Ada have not been so lucky? I don't think free-compiler availability is part > of it. I told my story because free compiler availability played as much of a role as advertisement. Imagine I stumbled upon Steelman requirements three years earlier. I would still have thought that this is exactly what I want from a programming language, and checked out what came out of it: Ada. But then, I would have discovered there is no Ada compiler for my usual platform. I might have given it a try using an old linux box if the timing as good, but then I would still have been put out by the pascalish look. So I would have discarded it, thinking that was a nice try. And then I would still be doing pedantic and over-instrumented C. > There are free compilers for the most common development environments > (Windows and various forms of Unix) to allow such people to learn and experiment > with the language. Once they get to the point of wanting to use it on obscure > platform X they're already hooked. The situation is certainly better now than when I started, as far as host platform goes. But still, I'm not sure playing with Ada on host platform is enough to hook people (assuming they are in the 2% or otherwise "fertile ground" for Ada). I would rather think they get hooked after their first "real" project (at least I was, and extending to other favorite languages many people I know were). If their current real projects target Android UI, iOS, "smart home", SDR boards, etc, after having played with Ada they would reluctantly shelf it in favor of a language that actually does the job. Just like me in my hypothetical alternate history above. So I guess it's a matter of estimating how much of the "fertile ground" matches the previous paragraph. My unfounded guess is a significant proportion. Natasha