RE: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

RE: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

Roga Danar wrote:

> What?  If I am not mistaken DEC has distance itself from VAX.  
> Ada is continues to
> be supported by many people throughout the world.

Sure.  If you want to spend your career programming in Sweden, have a nut,
buddy.  I'd rather stay here in Silicon Valley where the planet comes to
the feeding frenzy.

>  If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them.

*contemptuous chuckle*

Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend?  Check out the want ads.  MY
"statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are
literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++.  What statistical
sampling do I need other than this?  Yup, Ada IS a great language.  I
agree.  The Edsel was a great car, too.  How many people do you seeing
driving them, let alone BUYING them?

Look, too, at the Usenet news groups.  Compare the traffic on
comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*.  The Ada newgroup
is orders of magnitude smaller.  Look at the journals.  When's the last
time Ada was of the cover of IEEE Software?  Walk into Computer Literacy
or any other book store carrying geek literature.  What's the ratio of
C++/Java books to Ada?  It's easily orders of magnitude in difference.

I realize a few people are riding the Ada legacy and making money.  You're
welcome to it.  There are people pimping and selling crack to 12 year olds
too.  I don't want THAT money either, thank you.  I'll continue making
money elsewhere - and in technologies that have a future in both fun AND
promising projects.

> Since Ada is a great language and as many advantages and few drawbacks 
> compared
> with the more popular languages like C/C++, Java, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol 
> etc... It
> is only a matter of time and marketing that Ada is placed, rightfully, as the
> language for the next millennium, IMHO.

*gaffaw, snort, laugh out loud, wheeze*  Pardon me, sir.  I need to catch
my breath.  The only thing more pathetically funny to me than bad logic is
bad prognostication.  Thanx for making my day on BOTH counts.

What utter nonsense.  Your presumption that Ada has a great future because
it's a great language is laughable.  Why do I say this?  Look at APL, PL1,
and Simula.  All are great languages - and as dead as Ada WILL BE in the
next 20 years.  If Ada has any future at all it's only because of its
legacy.  I do realize that Ada has SOME popularity in Europe, but it's use
in the US is driven almost purely by the DoD Ada Initiative.  The Ada
Initiative has been (correctly) identified as a mistake, and Ada is now in
its death throws in the US.  Like it or not, sir, the US drives the world
markets, and Ada's un-popularity in American commercial markets AND its
un-popularity among US software developers means its days are numbered. 
Believe me.  I'm a former Ada man myself, and I see it dying rapidly even
in DoD circles.  I'm currently submitting a proposal to NASA in behalf of
a local company and the government managers know all too well that NO ONE
wants Ada any more.  They don't even ask about it!

Time and marketing?!?!  I have two words for this: puh-lease.  How are
time and marketing going to help Ada?  Take a look at the language
technologies that have absolutely left Ada in the dust: Java, C++, Perl,
Python, etc.  Why?  Simple: TIME AND MARKETING.  Java and C++ already have
the markets that Ada missed, and those markets are too happy with Java and
C++ to open their doors to an experiment that's already failed.  You're
welcome to continue fooling yourself all you like, sir, but Java and C++
already own the US development scene, and Ada isn't going to crack the
nut.  NO WAY!  Name me a large commercial US software developer who's
changing to Ada!  Name 20!  Even if you can, for every one you can name I
can name 20 that laugh at the notion of Ada overrunning the US software
development world.  I work in that world; believe me, I know.  I abandoned
Ada years ago and I haven't been out of work a DAY because of it, nor will
I be out of work for the forseeable future.

I work in Silicon Valley as a software consultant and I promise you, sir,
Ada isn't on the horizon of anyone - ANYONE - I regard as a client, and
for all the right reasons.  I agree - Ada's a great language.  So what? 
GREATNESS hasn't stopped other ideas from self-destructing.  Look at
BetaMax, Dvorak keyboards, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, and the
literally thousands of computer languages that have come and gone in our
world.  In a way, I admire your strange devotion and naive hopefullness,
but I'm on my way to retiring young and I can tell that I don't have Ada
to thank for it!

> -- Michael Smith
> Persident, AlphaSoft, Inc.
  ^^^^^^

Well, Mr. "Persident", I think you could add a spell checker to your
obviously long list of needed technical upgrades...

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[marc j bejerano]

Rick Thorne wrote:
> 
> Roga Danar wrote:
> 
> > What?  If I am not mistaken DEC has distance itself from VAX.
> > Ada is continues to
> > be supported by many people throughout the world.
> 
> Sure.  If you want to spend your career programming in Sweden, have a nut,
> buddy.  I'd rather stay here in Silicon Valley where the planet comes to
> the feeding frenzy.

Or anywhere that embedded development is taking place...
 
> >  If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them.
> 
> *contemptuous chuckle*
> 
> Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend?  Check out the want ads.  MY
> "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are
> literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++.  What statistical
> sampling do I need other than this?  Yup, Ada IS a great language.  I
> agree.  The Edsel was a great car, too.  How many people do you seeing
> driving them, let alone BUYING them?

Yes, and millions of lines of VB code are written daily (hmmm,
technically, they're drag-n-dropped daily). So what. Just because the
herd is stampeding in one direction doesn't mean that there isn't ANY
development in Ada. From my experience, most Ada jobs are not advertised
in the Times classified but, rather, are filtered through recruiters who
know where to look for Ada developers (www.adahome.com et.al.)
 
> Look, too, at the Usenet news groups.  Compare the traffic on
> comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*.  The Ada newgroup
> is orders of magnitude smaller.  Look at the journals.  When's the last
> time Ada was of the cover of IEEE Software?  Walk into Computer Literacy
> or any other book store carrying geek literature.  What's the ratio of
> C++/Java books to Ada?  It's easily orders of magnitude in difference.

Using this inane logic one could surmise that Ada programmers don't ask
as many stupid and off-topic questions as C/C++ and Java programmers
since, when reading comp.lang.ada I rarely find anything that is off
topic whereas when reading the aforementioned newsgroups there are
literally dozens of off-topic conversations going on that have nothing
to do with programming.
 
> I realize a few people are riding the Ada legacy and making money.  You're
> welcome to it.  There are people pimping and selling crack to 12 year olds
> too.  I don't want THAT money either, thank you.  I'll continue making
> money elsewhere - and in technologies that have a future in both fun AND
> promising projects.

The last three contracts I've worked on were anything but legacy. True,
they were all embedded systems but then that's where Ada's strength
lies.

> > Since Ada is a great language and as many advantages and few drawbacks
> > compared
> > with the more popular languages like C/C++, Java, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol
> > etc... It
> > is only a matter of time and marketing that Ada is placed, rightfully, as the
> > language for the next millennium, IMHO.
> 
> *gaffaw, snort, laugh out loud, wheeze*  Pardon me, sir.  I need to catch
> my breath.  The only thing more pathetically funny to me than bad logic is
> bad prognostication.  Thanx for making my day on BOTH counts.
> 
> What utter nonsense.  Your presumption that Ada has a great future because
> it's a great language is laughable.  Why do I say this?  Look at APL, PL1,
> and Simula.  All are great languages - and as dead as Ada WILL BE in the
> next 20 years.  If Ada has any future at all it's only because of its
> legacy.  I do realize that Ada has SOME popularity in Europe, but it's use
> in the US is driven almost purely by the DoD Ada Initiative.  The Ada
> Initiative has been (correctly) identified as a mistake, and Ada is now in
> its death throws in the US.  Like it or not, sir, the US drives the world
> markets, and Ada's un-popularity in American commercial markets AND its
> un-popularity among US software developers means its days are numbered.
> Believe me.  I'm a former Ada man myself, and I see it dying rapidly even
> in DoD circles.  I'm currently submitting a proposal to NASA in behalf of
> a local company and the government managers know all too well that NO ONE
> wants Ada any more.  They don't even ask about it!

Possibly true. Since I'm currently working at a large corporation that
develops avionics systems I would have to disagree with this assessment.
All new development is still done in Ada. Most managers who don't want
to hear about Ada are usually the ones with little to no good
experiences with Ada projects (this is not uncommon in other languages
either).
 
> Time and marketing?!?!  I have two words for this: puh-lease.  How are
> time and marketing going to help Ada?  Take a look at the language
> technologies that have absolutely left Ada in the dust: Java, C++, Perl,
> Python, etc.  Why?  Simple: TIME AND MARKETING.  Java and C++ already have
> the markets that Ada missed, and those markets are too happy with Java and
> C++ to open their doors to an experiment that's already failed.  You're
> welcome to continue fooling yourself all you like, sir, but Java and C++
> already own the US development scene, and Ada isn't going to crack the
> nut.  NO WAY!  Name me a large commercial US software developer who's
> changing to Ada!  Name 20!  Even if you can, for every one you can name I
> can name 20 that laugh at the notion of Ada overrunning the US software
> development world.  I work in that world; believe me, I know.  I abandoned
> Ada years ago and I haven't been out of work a DAY because of it, nor will
> I be out of work for the forseeable future.

I haven't abandoned Ada and I've been working without a break/layover
for over 8 years. I do, however, agree that Ada is a niche language and
will never (possibly) be "the language for the next millenium."

> I work in Silicon Valley as a software consultant and I promise you, sir,
> Ada isn't on the horizon of anyone - ANYONE - I regard as a client, and
> for all the right reasons.  I agree - Ada's a great language.  So what?
> GREATNESS hasn't stopped other ideas from self-destructing.  Look at
> BetaMax, Dvorak keyboards, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, and the
> literally thousands of computer languages that have come and gone in our
> world.  In a way, I admire your strange devotion and naive hopefullness,
> but I'm on my way to retiring young and I can tell that I don't have Ada
> to thank for it!

True. Quality does not a successful product or language make (hell, if
it did, Windows wouldn't be as wildly popular as it is). Personally,
fluency in many programming languages should be the goal of every
programmer (at least 2 languages). This knowledge can only help someone
design systems and applications as every language offers a different set
of features and trade-offs. How long would it have taken C++ to get
templates, exceptions, and tasking (okay, it's usually just a library or
API call) if it weren't for Ada (which has has all these features longer
than C++ has)? I still do not forsee C++ getting tasking (or
multi-threading) built into the language any time soon (Java, however,
does have this feature).

Just my $0.02 rebuttal.

--
Marc Bejerano
Software Engineer/Consultant

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Gautier]

> >  If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them.

> Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend?  Check out the want ads.  MY
> "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are
> literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++.

For every job opening for high-quality restaurants there are dozen for McDonalds.
Will you conclude high-quality restaurants are disappearing ?
Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows).
It's a good thing.
Why does Ada still exists, then ? Why are Ada95 compilers beeing developed ?
It's surely because of some advantages. E.g:

 - the most bugs are found at compile time in Ada (a fraction of a second) and
   during debugging sessions in Fortran, C, C++ (it may take hours);

 - an Ada source is easy to read.

The bad point for Ada is that these two advantages concerns a small part of
software industry.

 - it's a threat for a programmer hired by a company: an Ada program is
   too early finished and debugged; once the guy has been sacked, the source can
   be maintained and reworked without him! 

 - since the main stream software industry lives from selling buggy updates to
   buggy programs, Ada is absolutely not the language to use ;-) !

-- 
Gautier

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

In article <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch>, Gautier
<gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch> wrote:

Hello,

> For every job opening for high-quality restaurants there are dozen for 
> McDonalds. Will you conclude high-quality restaurants are disappearing ?

Are you actually submitting to me this as a refutation of my point?  I was
sincerely trying to generate some CRITICAL discussion here.

High-quality restaurants and fast-food joints operate in separate domains,
sir.  McDonalds caters to people on the go, kids, etc.  It is cheap,
quick, and good enough for people running for their lives.  High-quality
restaurants are for couples, friends, etc. who want to take their time,
enjoy each other's companionship, and truly savor a meal.  These are two
completely different worlds.  I wouldn't take my wife to McDonald's on our
anniversary, nor would I take her to Le Papillion while we're rushing
around Christmas shopping.

Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain.  They're all used for large
system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. 
Which you choose depends on the development environment you want.  If you
want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++
because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities.  If you
want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in
portability and UI development, use Java.  If you really don't care about
performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete
government standards, use Ada.  Your call.

> Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows).
> It's a good thing.

...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that Ada
hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known universe? 
If so, you haven't read much about the intent of the language you seem to
love so much!  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard
the government has tried to bully on us.  C++/Java and others have
considerable strengths of their own that make Ada unnecessary.  YES -
unnecessary.  C++ and Java are perfect forms of protest.  They were
developed by a handful of people (not a government bureaucracy like Ada
was) AND they're incredible languages, whether or not YOU agree.

> Why does Ada still exists, then ? Why are Ada95 compilers beeing developed ?
> It's surely because of some advantages. E.g:

> - the most bugs are found at compile time in Ada (a fraction of a second) and
>   during debugging sessions in Fortran, C, C++ (it may take hours);

Can you possibly be implying that C++/C compilers don't find bugs, and the
Ada somehow produces code without runtime errors by virtue of superior
compiler technology?

To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or
technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply
ludicrous.

> - an Ada source is easy to read.

Again, puh-lease.  Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code.  And
again - to make the statement that Ada by virtue of its own merits always
produced easy to read code isn't even worth discussing.  I've been there. 
I know too well to be patient with this argument.

There as another point in all this, sir: easy-to-read code isn't that
answer to one-tenth of the problems that plague software development. 
Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and
software architecture & design.  As a programming language, Ada doesn't
begin to address these issues except in the most obtuse way.  If we've
learned anything from Ada, we've learned that languages AREN'T at the
heart of the software engineering crisis.

My advice: before you make the public statement that Ada solves software
engineering's nightmares because the compilers are great and it produces
easy to read source code, I suggest you read "No Silver Bullet" by
Fredrick Brooks.  Ada is just a programming language.  Languages are NOT
at the heart of the software engineering crisis.  They are peripheral
co-conspirators at best.

> The bad point for Ada is that these two advantages concerns a small part of
> software industry.

>  - it's a threat for a programmer hired by a company: an Ada program is
>   too early finished and debugged; once the guy has been sacked, the source 
> can be maintained and reworked without him! 

AND AGAIN - are you actually implying that there's no Ada code out there
that wasn't years late, $$millions over budget, and virtually
unmaintainable?  If you believe this, I suggest you read some of the GAO
reports written in the last 10 years on this topic.  Ever wonder why the
Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD?  The reason is somple: Ada code
isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone
ELSE's code.

> - since the main stream software industry lives from selling buggy updates to
>   buggy programs, Ada is absolutely not the language to use ;-) !

Cute closure, and I'm certain the Ada worshippers are laughing with you. 
The rest of us are only too happy with our own stuff to simply smile at
your pointless jingoism and return to technologies with a future. 
Interesting how few of us regard Ada as one of them!

Rick

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Pat Rogers]

I'll ignore most of the drivel; however, some needs answering with
fact.

Rick Thorne wrote in message ...
<snip>
>Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain.  They're all used for
large
>system development, real-time processing, applications development,
etc.
>Which you choose depends on the development environment you want.
If you
>want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us
C++
>because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities.

I assume you're talking about C++ user-defined allocators, here.
Ada can do that too. Easily.

>If you want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous
flexibility in
>portability and UI development, use Java.

Same domain, hum?  I quote the header comment that Sun puts on the
software they distribute:

 * Copyright (c) 1994-1997 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
 *
 * <snip legalese>
 *
 * This software is not designed or intended for use in on-line
control of
 * aircraft, air traffic, aircraft navigation or aircraft
communications; or in
 * the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
 * facility. Licensee represents and warrants that it will not use
or
 * redistribute the Software for such purposes.
 */


<snip>

>Ever wonder why the
>Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD?  The reason is somple: Ada
code
>isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than
anyone
>ELSE's code.

Simply false.  See hard facts at:

http://www.adaresource.org/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/

http://www.adaresource.org/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

In article <74hk55$6t5$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers"
<progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote:

> Rick Thorne wrote in message ...
> 
> >Ever wonder why the
> >Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD?  The reason is somple: Ada
> code
> >isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than
> anyone
> >ELSE's code.
> 
> Simply false.  See hard facts at:
> 
> http://www.adaresource.org/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/
> 
> http://www.adaresource.org/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html

Personally, I think it's cute when someone touts an advocacy web page as
"hard fact."  This is like Ralph Reed calling the 0.5% of the American
population who are members of the Christian Coalition "the mainstream", or
the tobacco industry reports refuting the link between smoking and lung
cancer.  Honestly, Pat, this kind of logical fallacy is more appropriate
in alt.aliens.visitors.

I've seen these reports, and I've seen others as well.  I remain
unconvinced, and I remain so simply because I've seen the disasters in
plain ol' crappy Ada coding.  Fine - Ada's easier to read than C++ (tho
not as easy to read as Java, in my opinion).  Fine, Ada has a "true"
standard.  Fine, Ada's the programming language of choice in Sweden.  As a
veteran in BOTH Ada and C++/Java, I can tell you I've seen ugliness in
both, and beauty in both, and I remain utterly unconvinced that Ada has
enough advantages over ANY major language technology to emerge as anything
but a declining has-been.  You're doing well in Ada, are you?  Good for
you.  Your market is shrinking in the US - like it or not.  I'm doing
great in C++/Java myself, and my market's growing - like it or not.  I
hope we both enjoy a happy, early retirement.  I truly do.

I'll quote Fredrick Brooks again: "Ada is just a programming language." 
It doesn't fix the central problems in the software engineering crisis:
requirements definition and software architecture and design.  As such,
I'm still waiting for a convincing argument to make Ada part of my
future.  Ain't heard one yet!

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Pat Rogers]

Rick Thorne wrote in message ...
>In article <74hk55$6t5$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers"
><progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Rick Thorne wrote in message ...
>>
>> >Ever wonder why the
>> >Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD?  The reason is somple:
Ada
>> code
>> >isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than
>> anyone
>> >ELSE's code.
>>
>> Simply false.  See hard facts at:
>>
>> http://www.adaresource.org/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/
>>
>> http://www.adaresource.org/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html
>
>Personally, I think it's cute when someone touts an advocacy web
page as
>"hard fact."  This is like Ralph Reed calling the 0.5% of the
American
>population who are members of the Christian Coalition "the
mainstream", or
>the tobacco industry reports refuting the link between smoking and
lung
>cancer.  Honestly, Pat, this kind of logical fallacy is more
appropriate
>in alt.aliens.visitors.


When presented with fact, you spew forth vacuities.  Of course the
studies are prominently displayed at an advocacy page.  That in no
way diminishes their content, unless you didn't really bother to
read them.  If you were as familiar with their content as you
purport, you would note that the studies were largely NOT funded by
the DoD.  This is especially true of the Zeigler C/Ada results (the
second URL provided), which has nothing to do with the government
whatsoever and shows quantitatively that Ada is more productive than
C.

I'm not surprised you had difficulty with Ada.  It requires thought.

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

In article <74jhct$e2m$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers"
<progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote:

> I'm not surprised you had difficulty with Ada.  It requires thought.

Do you know what this is, Pat?

  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

It's a dull whetstone for sharpening your rapier whit.  Please use it:
believe me, anything will help.

If you'll excuse me, I've found rational people who are ANSWERING my
questions.  Without regret, I do hereby killfile thee...

Smuggly,

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Pat Rogers]

Rick Thorne wrote in message ...
>In article <74jhct$e2m$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers"

>If you'll excuse me, I've found rational people who are ANSWERING
my
>questions.  Without regret, I do hereby killfile thee...

I note that in another post you say:

"I thank you all for your responses and apologize for some of my
tone.  I
may have come off as an arrogant brat, but I do like and respect you
all.
I've been trying to get answers to my very important career choice
questions, and since the I Ching was unclear I decided to try the
direct
approach.  I've found this in life: if you want a response, ask a
question.  If you want and answer, piss someone off.  It's contrary
to me
nature, but it DOES work."

When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and
silliness rather than discuss the data.  A killfile for the answers
you don't like seems a strange way to learn.

>Smuggly,

Indeed.

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

In article <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers"
<progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote:

> When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and
> silliness rather than discuss the data.  A killfile for the answers
> you don't like seems a strange way to learn.

I'd answer you, but I've killfiled you.  Remember?!?

;-)

I'm truly sorry about the attitude.  Let me conclude this discussion as follows.

1) You haven't provided concrete facts.  You identified studies on an
obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater productivity. 
The Institute for Creation Reseach offers "hard core evidence" of
Scientific Creationism too.  Ever wonder why 95% of PhDs in biological
sciences poo-poo these findings?  Simple: these people aren't scientists;
they're advocates POSING as scientists.  When AFA produces a study showing
that Ada's a better language, it's like Dow-Corning doing research on the
safety of silicon breast implants.  You'd be out of your mind to not take
the data *cum grano salis*.

2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to
say I think they're all a joke?  Why?  Think on your training as an
engineer.  To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to
set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments.  To conduct
an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments,
identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed.  Additionally,
you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing
the data.  Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle
identical.  My belief: if Ada developers ACTUALLY DO beat the C++ers in
all areas (quality, development time, etc.), it's less because of the
source code and much more because of the system engineering involved. 
Most Ada organization (at least in the US) are government controlled in
some way (go to a Lockheed-Martin CDR/PDR if you don't believe this), and
the systems engineering is very tight.  The Ada people tend to get better
requirements that the C++ by virtue of their organizational domains, and
the design is usually less brittle for the same reasons.

My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me to
believe them.  For all the reasons I've stated above, I think they're
uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND  I think the studies are aggressively
skewed by advocates on whatever side.  I've actually read an AFA study
that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a grain of
salt!
 

Finally: my alien statement is valid for this reason: if you go into an
alt.alien.XXX newsgroup and ask for proof, they send you to a web site. 
The only thing that proves is this: logical fallacies, 'specially those
involving personal issues and prejudices, are alive and well.

Respectfully,

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Pat Rogers]

Rick Thorne wrote in message ...
>In article <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers"
><progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and
>> silliness rather than discuss the data.  A killfile for the
answers
>> you don't like seems a strange way to learn.
>
>I'd answer you, but I've killfiled you.  Remember?!?
>
>;-)

I was wondering where it would go.  :-)

>I'm truly sorry about the attitude.  Let me conclude this
discussion as follows.

I apologize for allowing myself to be annoyed.  Life's too short for
acrimony.

>1) You haven't provided concrete facts.  You identified studies on
an
>obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater
productivity.

The sponsor of the web page isn't the issue.  I said "hard data"
because the studies contain data rather than opinion.  If guilt by
location is used, why have the Web?  Why shouldn't an advocacy page
shout out the news?  Considering the source is of course important,
especially when *opinions* are being offered.  But in this case the
source is not the advocacy group, but rather, in most of the studies
cited, external non-governmental entities.  That is especially the
case for the Zeigler Ada/C productity results.


<snip>
>2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I
have to
>say I think they're all a joke?  Why?  Think on your training as an
>engineer.  To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you
need to
>set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments.  To
conduct
>an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments,
>identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed.
Additionally,
>you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other
analyzing
>the data.  Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle
>identical.
<snip>
>My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me
to
>believe them.  For all the reasons I've stated above, I think
they're
>uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND  I think the studies are
aggressively
>skewed by advocates on whatever side.  I've actually read an AFA
study
>that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a
grain of
>salt!


That argument can probably be made for one of the studies I cited,
but (IMHO) not both.  That is why I wished you had taken a look at
the Ada/C paper by Steve Zeigler of Rational (when they were
Verdix).  It fits your requirements rather well, as the paper
indicates: not Ada advocates (they were die-hard C programmers),
whole lifecycle, long term, etc.  Why not have a look rather than
dismiss it out-of-hand?  If you find factual fault with it, great --
that would help everybody move forward.

>Respectfully,

Returned in kind,

---
Pat Rogers                          Training & Development in:
http://www.classwide.com    Deadline Schedulability Analysis
progers@acm.org                 Software Fault Tolerance
(281)648-3165                       Real-Time/OO Languages

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Marc A. Criley]

Rick Thorne wrote:
> 
> 1) You haven't provided concrete facts.  You identified studies on an
> obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater productivity.
> The Institute for Creation Reseach offers "hard core evidence" of
> Scientific Creationism too.  Ever wonder why 95% of PhDs in biological
> sciences poo-poo these findings?  Simple: these people aren't scientists;
> they're advocates POSING as scientists.  When AFA produces a study showing
> that Ada's a better language, it's like Dow-Corning doing research on the
> safety of silicon breast implants.  You'd be out of your mind to not take
> the data *cum grano salis*.
> 
> 2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to
> say I think they're all a joke?  Why?  Think on your training as an
> engineer.  To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to
> set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments.  To conduct
> an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments,
> identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed.  Additionally,
> you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing
> the data.  Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle
> identical.  My belief: if Ada developers ACTUALLY DO beat the C++ers in
> all areas (quality, development time, etc.), it's less because of the
> source code and much more because of the system engineering involved.
> Most Ada organization (at least in the US) are government controlled in
> some way (go to a Lockheed-Martin CDR/PDR if you don't believe this), and
> the systems engineering is very tight.  The Ada people tend to get better
> requirements that the C++ by virtue of their organizational domains, and
> the design is usually less brittle for the same reasons.
> 
> My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me to
> believe them.  For all the reasons I've stated above, I think they're
> uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND  I think the studies are aggressively
> skewed by advocates on whatever side.  I've actually read an AFA study
> that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a grain of
> salt!
> 

Let me suggest one brief productivity study summary made by a
highly-respected
programming language non-partisan--Software Productivity Research's Capers
Jones.
In a letter to the editor published in the October 1998 issue of Crosstalk,
Jones was responding to an earlier article regarding SLOCs and metrics. 
While
advocating function points over SLOCs as a metrics basis was the motivation
for the letter, he did briefly summarize the results of a comparative
language
study.

"Elizabeth Starrett's article, "Measurement 101," Crosstalk, August 1998,
was
interesting and well written, but it left out a critical point. Metrics
based
on "source lines of code" move backward when comparing software
applications
written in different programming languages. The version in the low-level
language will look better than the version in the high-level language.

"In an article aimed at metrics novices, it is very important to point out
some
of the known hazards of software metrics. The fact that lines of code can't
be
used to measure economic productivity is definitely a known hazard that
should
be stressed. 

"In a comparative study of 10 versions of the same period using 10
different
programming languages (Ada 83, Ada95, C, C++, Objective C, PL/I, Assembler,
CHILL, Pascal, and Smalltalk), the lines of code metric failed to show
either
the highest productivity or best quality. Overall, the lowest cost and
fewest
defects were found in Smalltalk and Ada95, but the lines of code metric
favored
assembler. Function points correctly identified Smalltalk and Ada95 as
being
superior, but lines of code failed to do this. "

(http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/1998/oct/letters.html)

While I do not know the details of the referenced study, given the
reputation
of Capers Jones and the nature of his business, I believe one can trust the
validity of his conclusions.

> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> --
> ? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
> ?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
> ?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
> ?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
> ?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

-- 
Marc A. Criley
Chief Software Architect
Lockheed Martin M&DS
marc.a.criley@lmco.com
Phone: (610) 354-7861
Fax  : (610) 354-7308

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Matthew Heaney]

to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

> 2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to
> say I think they're all a joke?  Why?  Think on your training as an
> engineer.  To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to
> set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments.  To conduct
> an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments,
> identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed.  Additionally,
> you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing
> the data.  Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle
> identical.  My belief: if Ada developers ACTUALLY DO beat the C++ers in
> all areas (quality, development time, etc.), it's less because of the
> source code and much more because of the system engineering involved. 
> Most Ada organization (at least in the US) are government controlled in
> some way (go to a Lockheed-Martin CDR/PDR if you don't believe this), and
> the systems engineering is very tight.  The Ada people tend to get better
> requirements that the C++ by virtue of their organizational domains, and
> the design is usually less brittle for the same reasons.


Actually, that was very close to the conditions of the Zeigler study, in
which the same programmers wrote the same application in both Ada and C.

No, Ada is not going to solve the software crisis.  It's only a
programming language, just one more tool in a programmer's tool-box.

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Chris Morgan]

to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

> Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain.  They're all used for large
> system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. 
> Which you choose depends on the development environment you want.  If you
> want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++
> because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities. 

Yes, and incredible opportunities to shoot yourself in every reference
to a pointer to a virtual base class template of your foot. I speak as
someone with plenty of foot injuries in this area.

 If you
> want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in
> portability and UI development, use Java.

Nice language, but lacks templates and still has severe performance
problems. Ada is portable via recompilation instead of interpretation,
a deliberate design decision.

>  If you really don't care about
> performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete
> government standards, use Ada.  Your call.

Complete twaddle.

If you compare the performance of C and Ada both compiled with gcc
based compilers you will generally see equivalent performance with
equivalent code, there is no inherent speed cost with Ada. If you
chose to turn on run-time checks with the Ada compiler you can, and
therefore pay a price in speed in return for greater reliability. The
fact that there is no equivalent facility in C, or C++ is simply a
point against those languages.

There are at least two or three Ada vendors with excellent support in
my own personal experience. There are also C++ vendors with rather
poor support unless you cough up big bucks.

As for obscure and obsolete standards, an ISO standard for a language
is a large win and not in the least obscure. It's also not a
government standard any more. When Java or C++ standards are ratified
they too become ISO standards not Sun or AT&T property.


> 
> > Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows).
> > It's a good thing.
> 
> ...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that Ada
> hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known universe? 
> If so, you haven't read much about the intent of the language you seem to
> love so much!  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
> commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard
> the government has tried to bully on us. 

The government didn't try to bully anyone into using Ada. Requiring
it's use on government contracts is hardly bullying. Additionally Ada
has standardised interfaces to other languages (at least the ones that
are themselves standardised) to encourage reuse of existing
libraries).

 C++/Java and others have
> considerable strengths of their own that make Ada unnecessary.  YES -
> unnecessary.  C++ and Java are perfect forms of protest.  They were
> developed by a handful of people (not a government bureaucracy like Ada
> was) AND they're incredible languages, whether or not YOU agree.

Ada was not developed by a bureaucracy, again you reveal your
ignorance and prejudice here as you lecture others. In both cases
(Ada83 and Ada95) the language definition was developed by small
highly-focused design teams. For example in Ada95 although there was a
large amount of consensus building and requirement gathering, there
was a strong lead from a chief architect who, in the end, had final
say.

In fact the original Ada lent some inspiration to C++, and it has
often been said that semantically Java is closer to Ada than C or C++
for obvious reasons.

> Can you possibly be implying that C++/C compilers don't find bugs, and the
> Ada somehow produces code without runtime errors by virtue of superior
> compiler technology?
> 
> To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or
> technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply
> ludicrous.

True - you've built up the other poster's statement into an easy to
rebut straw man, impressing nobody. There are some factual aspects of
the difference between Ada and, say, C++ that make the range of
mistakes catchable by an Ada compiler far greater than a C++
compiler. Aliasing analysis, array bounds checking, dangling pointer
prevention are major wins, but even the simple fact of a clean
compilation model with no macro-processing helps a lot.

> Again, puh-lease.  Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code.  And
> again - to make the statement that Ada by virtue of its own merits always
> produced easy to read code isn't even worth discussing.  I've been there. 
> I know too well to be patient with this argument.

Bad Ada code is possible, after all we are discussing fairly complete
languages, but good Ada code _is_ very very readable, even to a
non-Ada programmer. Good C++ is less readable to a non-C++ programmer
in my opinion. I think this has to do with it being less encoded,
there is closer to a 1-1 between word and concept. Additionally C++
has many more unpleasant warts such as the over use of the word
static, the polluted messy global namespace inherited from C etc.

> 
> There as another point in all this, sir: easy-to-read code isn't that
> answer to one-tenth of the problems that plague software development. 
> Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and
> software architecture & design. 

True.

> As a programming language, Ada doesn't begin to address these issues
> except in the most obtuse way.  If we've learned anything from Ada,
> we've learned that languages AREN'T at the heart of the software
> engineering crisis.

False. Ada as part of a well-controlled software engineering process
is a big win. If you don't start with a good process you will have
problems no matter what language you use.

> 
> My advice: before you make the public statement that Ada solves software
> engineering's nightmares because the compilers are great and it produces
> easy to read source code, I suggest you read "No Silver Bullet" by
> Fredrick Brooks.  Ada is just a programming language.  Languages are NOT
> at the heart of the software engineering crisis.  They are peripheral
> co-conspirators at best.

The designers of Ada work with the assumption that the basics such as
source code control/configuration management, requirements
traceability, testing etc are also addressed. Without all that stuff
too you are correct, Ada is as unhelpful as a high-performance car
where there are no roads.

> AND AGAIN - are you actually implying that there's no Ada code out there
> that wasn't years late, $$millions over budget, and virtually
> unmaintainable?  If you believe this, I suggest you read some of the GAO
> reports written in the last 10 years on this topic.  Ever wonder why the
> Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD?  The reason is somple: Ada code
> isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone
> ELSE's code.

Well the word is that the C++ zealots aren't doing any better at all
in all those projects who leaped the fence.

> Cute closure, and I'm certain the Ada worshippers are laughing with you. 
> The rest of us are only too happy with our own stuff to simply smile at
> your pointless jingoism and return to technologies with a future. 
> Interesting how few of us regard Ada as one of them!

From the posting you've made on this thread, not much you have to say
about Java, C++ or Ada will be at all interesting to anyone. I haven't
worked with Ada for a living for four years (now doing C++, Java, Perl
etc) so it may be you think "we" share your views. Well I don't.

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com>		http://www.mihalis.net
      NP:- Angus Dei - AC/DC do choral music

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

In article <87k903u4oj.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com>, Chris Morgan
<mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


> From the posting you've made on this thread, not much you have to say
> about Java, C++ or Ada will be at all interesting to anyone. I haven't
> worked with Ada for a living for four years (now doing C++, Java, Perl
> etc) so it may be you think "we" share your views. Well I don't.

To Chris:

Honestly, this is irrelevent.  Whether or not we as a handful of people in
the profession like Ada has little to do with the trends.  The trend is
away from Ada and toward Java and C++ by orders of magnitude.  That's
where the jobs are.  I know that a few people are doing well in Ada. 
There are also a few making money in Jovial as well.  Good for them.  I'd
rather be where I can count on a future, and Ada's not that place for me.

In truth, I like Ada too.  I'm a former Ada man myself, as I believe I
mentioned.  There are great things about the language, and since we're all
aware of them there's no point in going into them.  I also prefer Beta to
VHS.  I also prefer Borland OWL GUI libraries to MFC.  Guess what: They're
all nowhere, so there's no point in pursuing them.  I really do think
Ada's headed that-a way, and I don't want to be there at 50 looking for an
opening at 7-11 'cuz I made bad choices now.

To all:

My question to the news group was this: does Ada have a future?  My answer
has been: Rick, you need to lay off the coffee.  Thank you, really - in
your obtuse arrogance, you couldn't have made the point more clear!

Rick

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[David Gillon]

Rick Thorne wrote:

> My question to the news group was this: does Ada have a future?  

Yes. More specifically, in the general arena probably only in niche
markets, but in the safety critical arena there really isn't any
language that has been shown to be superior -- Java deliberately opts
out of safety critical, C++ has well known questionmarks over it's
suitability, Eiffel is possibly the only new contender on the market,
but needs a good safety critical demo. Language popularity scores
precisely zero when detemining the best language to keep 300+ people
safe on an ETOPS flight that's 180 minutes from the nearest airport. I
choose to work in safety critical avionics, I believe Ada is the safest
language for this particular area of programming, therefore I will
continue to advocate (and expect) its use. 

As for continuing usage, think about maintenance if nothing else. The
777 probably has thirty years of production left (cf 747, 30yo and still
in active development), and twenty years service life for individual
airframes is normal -- that takes me well past retirement, thanks....


-- 

David Gillon
MAv Rochester

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

In article <366D4B3B.504810FB@gecm.com>, David Gillon
<David.Gillon@gecm.com> wrote:

> Rick Thorne wrote:
> 
> > My question to the news group was this: does Ada have a future?  
> 
> Yes. More specifically, in the general arena probably only in niche
> markets, but in the safety critical arena there really isn't any
> language that has been shown to be superior [-]

Another excellent response, and I thank you, David.  Like Marin, you've
identified the utility of Ada in a niche market, and you've both shown me
that it's stable in its niche (see my reply to Marin).

Thanx.

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Matthew Heaney]

to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

> In truth, I like Ada too.  I'm a former Ada man myself, as I believe I
> mentioned.  There are great things about the language, and since we're all
> aware of them there's no point in going into them.  I also prefer Beta to
> VHS.

This is actually a specious comparison.  Though Beta had superior picture
quality, it had only half (or a third?) of the playing time of VHS.  The
market decided that playing time was more important, and so chose VHS.

(Credit goes to Robert Dewar for pointing this out in a previous post.)

Arguments about Beta format being "better" usually omit the contribution
of playing time in the decision to chose VHS.

So I don't buy the argument that Ada has "failed" even though it is
"better." 

I would say that Ada is not as popular for a few reasons, among them:

1) Tony Hoare severely criticized Ada in his Turing Award lecture,
   saying (literally) that the future of mankind was at stake if we were
   to use Ada, and that Ada was "doomed to succeed."  Who's gonna argue
   with Hoare?  If he said it, it must be true, right?

   In retrospect, his criticisms seem a little, well, dated.  One of the
   things he said would cause life on Earth to end was using exceptions!
   Although exceptions can be misused, that's true of all language
   features, and nowadays, everyone seems to think exceptions are a
   Pretty Good Idea.

   People sometimes "forget" to mention that Hoare's lecture was
   directed at an early version of the language.  Ada wasn't
   standardized until 1983, and Hoare's speech took place in 1980.  The
   language was in fact made simpler between its 1980 draft and its 1983
   final version.

2) The world wasn't ready for another large language.  Parnas, Hoare,
   Dijkstra were all critical of the language, noting especially its
   size, and when guys like that talk, people listen.  I suspect
   (perhaps I am re-writing history) that Hoare's speech influenced the
   ACM canvassers, who *rejected* the language during the ballot, citing
   its size as a concern.

   People (like P. J. Plaugher) sometimes lump together "large"
   languages, putting Ada in the same bucket as PL/I and Algol 68.  I
   don't think this is a fair comparison, because Ada is a consistent
   language, reflecting the vision of its architect (even if you don't
   happen to like that vision).  In his paper "If C++ is the answer,
   what is the question?", Plaugher gave a lame criticism of Ada,
   explaining that programmers could nest packages to any level they
   wanted.  Huh?

   I've seen Ada put in the imperative group of C and Fortran,
   explaining the fact that Ada doesn't use distinguished-receiver
   syntax as proof of its emphasis on procedural programming.  Even
   Brown University professor Peter Wegner seems to ignore the fact that
   Ada has abstract data types, labeling Ada merely "object-based"
   because it "uses packages as the unit of decomposition."  Huh?

3) Most programmers think that getting run-time errors, and then using a
   debugger to find and fix those errors, is the normal way to program.
   They aren't aware that many of those errors can be detected by the
   compiler.  And those that are aware, don't necessarily like that,
   because repairing bugs is challenging, and, well, sorta fun.

   You are not giving a programmer good news when you tell him that
   he'll get fewer bugs, and that he'll have to do less debugging.
   Basically, we still live in the dark ages of programming, not unlike
   the time engineers were learning about boiler technology by figuring
   out why a boiler exploded, scalding people to death (remember the
   Therac-25?).  People will probably have to die in order for "software
   engineering" to be a true engineering profession, instead of the
   buzzword that it is today.  Sad but true.

4) Early compilers were way, way too expensive, and compilers were (and
   still are today) very difficult to implement.  As a language
   designer, Jean Ichbiah didn't concentrate enough on language
   implementation issues.  (By contrast, Tucker is a compiler-writer's
   language designer.  Suffice to say, things would be very different
   had Red, the version proffered by Ben Brosgol then at Intermetrics,
   been chosen.)

   The obvious repercussion of this is that there weren't any cheap
   compilers (say, in the US$50 - US$100 range) that you could run on
   your PC at home, so no one could experiment with the language.  Ada
   essentially missed the boat in the PC revolution, and so was never
   able to develop the grass-roots support that Pascal and C had
   (because those languages were relatively easy to implement, and were
   therefore much more readily available).

   Again, we see that there are many issues that factor into a decision
   to purchase a compiler (just like as for buying tapes for your VCR).
   You can tell the client about how he's going to have fewer bugs
   (superior picture quality), but forget to mention that the compiler
   will cost US$3000 (has less playing time).

   The market chose availability and cost of compilers over quality of
   language.  This might not be a very smart decision, because the cost
   of human labor to find and fix bugs is way, way, way more expensive
   than any compiler, but since we don't use metrics in this industry,
   decision-makers don't now that.

5) There is an entire industry devoted to selling tools to repair the
   defects in the C language (tools for finding memory leaks, type
   errors, etc).  Guys like Les Hatton have a vested interest in keeping
   things exactly as they are, because their livelihood depends on
   people using error-prone languages.  Those people just aren't going
   to stand on the sidelines while you tell programmers that if they use
   Ada, they can throw way all their other tools too.

6) Ada didn't have type extension and dynamic binding, and so missed the
   boat on the object technology revolution.  You just weren't cool
   enough in the 80's, if you didn't use an object-oriented language.

   Why wasn't Ada83 object oriented?  It depends on who you ask.
   According to Bertrand Meyer (peut-etre il a parle a Jean?), Jean
   --who had been writing Simula compilers, and was thus familiar with
   the paradigm-- thought that dynamic binding would have been too
   radical for the conservative DoD, who after all were the ones
   commissioning the language, and so he figured they wouldn't go for
   it.  According to others, Jean in fact didn't want type extension and
   dynamic binding, because he didn't think it was necessary.

   (Although, ironically, it was Jean who did push for inheritance of
   operations.  In retrospect, I think this turned out to be a bad
   language design decision, because very, very few Ada programmers
   --even longtime ones-- really understand how the inheritance model of
   Ada83 works, and therefore don't use it.  One "programmer" who did
   understand this model was Tucker Taft, who made this the cornerstone
   of the mechanism to add type extension to the language.)

   You have to understand the climate of the times.  Ada was largely a
   reaction to languages like Fortran.  They [the commissioners -- the
   Dod] wanted once and for all to determine everything at compile time,
   so you could eliminate errors like the parameters of an invocation of
   a subprogram not agreeing with the parameters of the declaration.
   Certainly not an unreasonable desire!

   At that time, Smalltalk was the popular object-oriented language, and
   method lookup really was slow, but only because the language was
   interpreted.  Sadly, many people then and even today overlook this,
   and conclude that "object-oriented programming makes your program run
   slow," which squelched the idea for inclusion in a deterministic,
   real-time language. (Example: at SIGAda *this* year (1998) someone
   got up to the microphone to ask the presenter a question, explaining
   that he did real-time systems, and he wanted to know if he should be
   nervous about object-oriented programming!  Some rumors just die
   hard.)

   Of course we know now that dynamic binding is nearly as efficient as
   static binding.  The Smalltalk legacy lives on, however, and reuse
   via inheritance came to be seen as the Measure Of All Good Things.  

   But there is a dark side to this, called the "fragile base class"
   problem.  Deep inheritance hierarchies create a lot of coupling
   between abstractions, creating a tension between reuse and
   information hiding.  An abstraction is basically exposing its
   representation by announcing that it inherits from another
   abstraction, and we should all know the kind of maintenance headaches
   you have when you don't practice information hiding.

   Thankfully, the tide seems to be turning, and people are beginning to
   realize that type extension is not so great after all, and that
   "mere" aggregation is often preferable.  Deep inheritance hierarchies
   as a re-use mechanism may be fine for by-reference languages like
   Smalltalk and Eiffel, but leaf-classes in a by-value language like
   Ada95 or C++ become VERY SENSITIVE to the representation of the
   ancestor classes, which means massive re-compilations are often
   required any time you touch a base class.  (This is the sort of
   problem we had for other reasons in Ada83, which motivated the
   inclusion of child packages in Ada95.)

   If you are an Ada95 or C++ programmer who programs "the pure
   object-oriented way" by creating deep inheritance hierarchies, then
   YOU ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE.  You're going to spend all your time
   just compiling.

   Funny story: A new programmer just started using Ada, and posted a
   question to this newsgroup.  He had been reading in Mike Feldman's
   introductory book about the abstract data types in Ada, and remarked
   that ADTs reminded him of object-oriented programming.  He wanted to
   know what the difference was between the two.

   Good question.

   Guys like Pete Coad who write things like "Ada is not
   object-oriented. PERIOD." miss the whole point, which is that the
   important thing is language support for user-defined abstractions.
   Ada83 had that, and then some.  If you use a "pure" language like
   Smalltalk or Eiffel, your entire world is inheritance hierarchies,
   and so you think any language without deep inheritance hierarchies
   must be lacking.  

   (Aside: I hate the term "pure object-oriented," because it makes a
   lot of naive programmers think that "pure" must be "better."  This is
   the same reason I don't like how Wegner created a hierarchy from
   "object-based" to "class-based" to "object-oriented," because
   programmers are going to think "object-oriented" is better than
   "object-based."  These shouldn't be in a hierarchy, because they are
   just alternate implementation techniques; one is better than another
   only to the extent that it helps you solve a problem.  Just look at
   the singleton pattern.  In a "pure" language, you have to jump
   through hoops to create the singleton, which is an object-based
   abstraction.)

   What also happened during the 80's is that the term "object-oriented"
   changed meaning.  It used to refer a data-centric style of
   programming that emphasized abstraction, and what you do to an
   abstraction, in contrast to a procedural style, which emphasized
   strictly what you do.  Given that definition, people were happy to
   call Ada an object-oriented language.

   For whatever reason (probably due to Wegner), the term
   object-oriented came to mean language support for type extension and
   dynamic binding, and if your language didn't have that, then you
   couldn't call it object-oriented.  And so Smalltalk programmers like
   Pete Coad could criticize the Ada for not being truly
   "object-oriented."

   But this is like saying you can only call them "jeans" if they have a
   zipper fly.  If your blue cotton pants made by Levi have only a
   button fly, and not a zipper, then they're not really jeans.

   I hope you see how ridiculous this nomenclature issue is.
   Object-oriented is a paradigm, a way of thinking.  Ada83 had direct
   language support for modeling in terms of abstractions, which is the
   sine qua non of object-objected programming.

   I like having type extension and dynamic binding in the Ada95, but
   you'd be wrong to think that this changes my style of programming
   much.  The most important additions to the language were better
   support for real-time programming, and hierarchical name-spaces (child
   packages).  The tagged type stuff is just frosting on the cake.


I'm reading a great book now called Why People Believe Weird Things, by
Micheal Shermer, in which the author explains what rational thinking is,
and how skepticism is a process.  Basically, people believe something
because that want to, not because of any scientific arguments you make.

There are guys out there who dislike Ada, but they do so because they
want to, not because of any rational analysis of its merits or flaws.
Sometimes even their arguments are factually incorrect, like saying that
"Ada was designed by committee," ignoring the fact that Jean vetoed
language design arguments that were 12-to-1 against him.  It's not
unlike creationists who explain the "fact" that evolution violates the
2nd law of thermodynamics.  (No, it does not, as any book on freshman
physics will tell you.)

I've explained the reasons Ada why I think is not as popular as C++, and
I'd like to hope that it will convince Ada's detractors that Ada isn't
so bad after all.  But as Robert Dewar pointed out, a person who has
made an irrational decision probably isn't going to be swayed by
rational arguments!  

Read Shermer, and you'll understand.

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <m3hfv6xqqu.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>, Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> writes:

> 2) The world wasn't ready for another large language.  Parnas, Hoare,
>    Dijkstra were all critical of the language, noting especially its
>    size, and when guys like that talk, people listen.

I doubt that more than 5% of today's C programmers recognize and of
those names.  Would anyone argue that the percentage is higher for
decision-making managers ?

Larry Kilgallen

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[John McCabe]

Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:

<..snip..>

>This is actually a specious comparison.  Though Beta had superior picture
>quality, it had only half (or a third?) of the playing time of VHS.  The
>market decided that playing time was more important, and so chose VHS.
>
>(Credit goes to Robert Dewar for pointing this out in a previous post.)
>
>Arguments about Beta format being "better" usually omit the contribution
>of playing time in the decision to chose VHS.

Off-topic I know, but I had a Betamax video recorder and when that
format started to fizzle out, we were using 3h15min tapes compared to
the then VHS limit of 3 hours. 4 hours were possible but hadn't really
hit the market.

Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <to.reply-0812980710010001@129.197.97.40> to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

  > Honestly, this is irrelevent.  Whether or not we as a handful of people in
  > the profession like Ada has little to do with the trends.

  Then let's look where the real trends are.  When someone asks "Is
XXX a dead language, they are not at all concerned with whether or not
there is a small cabal of programmers still using the language, they
are concerned with the answers to three questions:

  1) Are compilers available for popular and currently available hardware
and operating systems?

  2) Is the language itself maintained?

  3) Will compilers be available for future hardware and software
releases?

  Let's put a few languages through those filters:

      Ada95  Algol68  C      C++     Cobol    Fortran  Java    Pascal  PL/I
1)    Yes    Few      Yes    Most    Most     Some     Most    Some    Few
2)    Yes    No       Yes    Yes     Yes      Yes      Soon    No      No
3)    Yes    No       Yes    Most    Most     Few      Yes     Few     Few

   The only things I see as controversial in these answers are the
mosts under C++ targets, which reflect experience in the embedded
market, and the most and soon under Java.  If you are willing to
accept g++ as a viable C++ implementation, it is almost as widely
available as Ada.  But then I would have to extend the same "courtesy"
to Pascal and Fortran, where it is IMHO not true.

   But in any case, the reality is that in most cases if you want
widely portable code, you use Ada or C.  (If it needs to run on 8-bit
targets, you probably are forced to C, although there are some "8-bit"
chips with Ada compilers available.)  If you are targeting just data
processing environments, then COBOL is an alternative.  Similarly for
desktop computing and C++, or number crunching and Fortran.

   Pascal, PL/I and Algol all were nice languages once upon a time,
and there are still compilers for some popular platforms.  But as
choices for major projects they are as dead as IPL-V or Autocoder.

   Will C and Ada continue to be the only possible choices for
widespread applications in the foreseeable future?  With the
exceptions noted above, probably.  Some people think that C++ and Java
will be potential choices in the near future, but I just don't see it
in the embedded market.

   On the flip side, how long will C and Ada continue to be valid
choices?  I can't see a time when they won't be.  There is enough
momentum behind both that when new hardware is announced there will
almost always be working compilers for one or both languages
available.  If not, both will probably be available before beta
hardware.  (As it happens I do know of a couple chips without a good C
compiler, but the only new chips I can think in the past ten years
without an available Ada compiler are some members of the TI TMS320C
family.  Chips without a good C++ compiler?  Dozens.  Without a good
Java compiler?  Weeelll, I could say all of them, but there do seem to
be some good Java COMPILERS showing up. I just haven't tried any out.)


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <EACHUS.98Dec8163253@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> In article <to.reply-0812980710010001@129.197.97.40> to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:
> 
>   > Honestly, this is irrelevent.  Whether or not we as a handful of people in
>   > the profession like Ada has little to do with the trends.
> 
>   Then let's look where the real trends are.  When someone asks "Is
> XXX a dead language, they are not at all concerned with whether or not
> there is a small cabal of programmers still using the language, they
> are concerned with the answers to three questions:
> 
>   1) Are compilers available for popular and currently available hardware
> and operating systems?
> 
>   2) Is the language itself maintained?
> 
>   3) Will compilers be available for future hardware and software
> releases?
> 
>   Let's put a few languages through those filters:
> 
>       Ada95  Algol68  C      C++     Cobol    Fortran  Java    Pascal  PL/I
> 1)    Yes    Few      Yes    Most    Most     Some     Most    Some    Few
> 2)    Yes    No       Yes    Yes     Yes      Yes      Soon    No      No
> 3)    Yes    No       Yes    Most    Most     Few      Yes     Few     Few

I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for:

	MVS		Popular, Currently available
	OS400		Popular, Currently available
	HP-MPE		Currently available
	VAX/VMS		Popular, Currently available
	Macintosh 68K	Popular
	Alpha NT	Currently available

Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems dubious to me.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[dewarr]

In article <1998Dec8.174032.1@eisner>,
  Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
> I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for:
>
> 	MVS		Popular, Currently available
> 	OS400		Popular, Currently available
> 	HP-MPE		Currently available
> 	VAX/VMS		Popular, Currently available
> 	Macintosh 68K	Popular
> 	Alpha NT	Currently available
>
> Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems
dubious to me.


The MVS and OS400 entries seem a fair point. The issue
here of course is simply lack of interest. What after all
is interesting in fact is not whether there are compilers
for all machines, but rather whether lack of compilers is
ever an issue. Lack of Ada 95 compilers on MVS and OS400
is simply not an issue, since no one is interested at the
current time.

HP-MPE is a fairly small niche, but this is vaguely fair

VAX/VMS and Max/68K are obsolete machines, and clearly you
will not find compilers for all obsolete machines. These
are after all machines which were pretty much obsolete
at the time that Ada 95 came into existence. Yes, we all
know poor Larry has to play with VAX'es for ever, but this
is hardly relevant to the general scene. And the 68K Mac is
truly a dead dog at this stage, popular, I don't even think
that is fair at this stage.

Alpha NT is definitely an example of a machine that does
have some small niche of usage, and lacks an Ada 95
compiler. It would in fact be easy to port GNAT to this
target, and we even demonstrated this port three years ago,
but there simply has been no interest.

Again, I think the interesting thing here is that we are
now at a stage where lack of compilers is not a significant
factor in Ada 95 usage. Yes, there are some machines which
still don't have Ada 95 support, but this reflects more of
a lack of significant interest in Ada 95 on that target
than anything else.

Robert Dewar

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <74kuja$72s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:
> In article <1998Dec8.174032.1@eisner>,
>   Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
>> I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for:
>>
>> 	MVS		Popular, Currently available
>> 	OS400		Popular, Currently available
>> 	HP-MPE		Currently available
>> 	VAX/VMS		Popular, Currently available
>> 	Macintosh 68K	Popular
>> 	Alpha NT	Currently available
>>
>> Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems
> dubious to me.
> 
> 
> The MVS and OS400 entries seem a fair point. The issue
> here of course is simply lack of interest. What after all
> is interesting in fact is not whether there are compilers
> for all machines, but rather whether lack of compilers is
> ever an issue. Lack of Ada 95 compilers on MVS and OS400
> is simply not an issue, since no one is interested at the
> current time.

<snip>

> Again, I think the interesting thing here is that we are
> now at a stage where lack of compilers is not a significant
> factor in Ada 95 usage. Yes, there are some machines which
> still don't have Ada 95 support, but this reflects more of
> a lack of significant interest in Ada 95 on that target
> than anything else.

I do not disagree about the extent to which a lack of compilers
affects Ada popularity.  I do not disagree that lack of Ada 95 usage
affects the availability of compilers.  The statement with which I
was disagreeing was that Ada95 was available on "all popular and
currently available" operating systems.  Ada advocacy should be
tempered by accuracy so as to distinguish it from the rest of the
computer industry. :-)


Larry Kilgallen

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <1998Dec9.092835.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

   >> I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for:

   >> 	MVS		Popular, Currently available
   >> 	OS400		Popular, Currently available
   >> 	HP-MPE		Currently available
   >> 	VAX/VMS		Popular, Currently available
   >> 	Macintosh 68K	Popular
   >> 	Alpha NT	Currently available

   >> Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems
   > dubious to me.

  > I do not disagree about the extent to which a lack of compilers
  > affects Ada popularity.  I do not disagree that lack of Ada 95 usage
  > affects the availability of compilers.  The statement with which I
  > was disagreeing was that Ada95 was available on "all popular and
  > currently available" operating systems.  Ada advocacy should be
  > tempered by accuracy so as to distinguish it from the rest of the
  > computer industry. :-)

   Short answer--I disagree completely with your characterization of
any of these products with the possible exception of MVS, as popular
and currently available.  Perhaps the right characterization is "once
popular, still somewhat available."

   Of course, with the possible exception of OS400, there were several
validated Ada 83 compilers for every machine on your list.  In fact I
am supporting projects that use several of them.  The reality is that
for something like VAX/VMS, there is no great pressure to switch
existing Ada 83 code to Ada 95, but there is a need to maintain the
existing base.  So there is a continued demand for Ada 83 on the VAX,
but no visible Ada 95 demand.  New VMS starts use Alphas.

   And since I mentioned Alphas, Alpha NT is a very special case.
There are good Alpha VMS compilers, and there are good x86 NT
compilers, in many cases versions of the same compiler, so a port
would be trivial.  In fact I believe GNAT actually had such a version
at one point.   Is the lack of demand for that product due to a lack
of demand for NT on Alpha, or due to a lack of demand for Ada 95?  My
best guess is that most Alpha NT machines are used as servers for NT
networks where the desktop machines are Pentium, etc., based.  So the
Ada compilers on those servers are actually run on and targeted to the
desktop.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <EACHUS.98Dec10113707@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> In article <1998Dec9.092835.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> 
>    >> I have yet to find supported Ada95 compilers for:
> 
>    >> 	MVS		Popular, Currently available
>    >> 	OS400		Popular, Currently available
>    >> 	HP-MPE		Currently available
>    >> 	VAX/VMS		Popular, Currently available
>    >> 	Macintosh 68K	Popular
>    >> 	Alpha NT	Currently available
> 
>    >> Giving Ada95 an answer of "Yes" for question 1 seems
>    > dubious to me.
> 
>   > I do not disagree about the extent to which a lack of compilers
>   > affects Ada popularity.  I do not disagree that lack of Ada 95 usage
>   > affects the availability of compilers.  The statement with which I
>   > was disagreeing was that Ada95 was available on "all popular and
>   > currently available" operating systems.  Ada advocacy should be
>   > tempered by accuracy so as to distinguish it from the rest of the
>   > computer industry. :-)
> 
>    Short answer--I disagree completely with your characterization of
> any of these products with the possible exception of MVS, as popular
> and currently available.  Perhaps the right characterization is "once
> popular, still somewhat available."

I do not know what "somewhat available" means -- I can buy a machine
new from its original manufacturer or I cannot.  Only 68K Macintosh
fails that test.

I do not see how you could possibly view OS400 as "non popular".
It is the mainstay of many small businesses, and has some vertical
markets totally locked up due to ISV loyalty to OS400.  For that
matter, I do not see how your admit MVS as only a "possible exception".

A pedantic resort to the Latin would say "popular" means "home computer",
but surely that is not what any of us mean in discussing the computer
industry.

>    Of course, with the possible exception of OS400, there were several
> validated Ada 83 compilers for every machine on your list.

That is immaterial to my criticism of the statement regarding Ada95
availability.  I use Ada83 quite happily, but incorrect advocacy
statements regarding Ada95 availability do Ada no good.

(As a side issue, I would like to know more about the Ada 83 compiler
for HP-MPE.)

>    And since I mentioned Alphas, Alpha NT is a very special case.
> There are good Alpha VMS compilers, and there are good x86 NT
> compilers, in many cases versions of the same compiler, so a port
> would be trivial.  In fact I believe GNAT actually had such a version
> at one point.   Is the lack of demand for that product due to a lack
> of demand for NT on Alpha, or due to a lack of demand for Ada 95?

Again, that is irrelevant to my complaint about incorrect advocacy claims.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Roga Danar]

Rick Thorne wrote:

> In article <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch>, Gautier
> <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>  If you want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++
> because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities.

    Hmm.  How about Ada representation specifications? You must admit that is a
pretty close to the machine.

>  If you really don't care about
> performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete
> government standards, use Ada.  Your call

    Performance?  Turn off the checks and I think you may find it comparable.
    As for standards, I don't think your saying that the Ada95 standard is
obsolete.
    I would agree that some of the government standards on software development are
though.

> .
>
> > Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows).
> > It's a good thing.
>
> ...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that Ada
> hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known universe?

    Ada has a international standard, yes.  Not a US industry one though as you
have pointed out.  As for imposing standards, What sort of Ada language standards
do you mean?

    If you mean DOD stating that a project "shall" use Ada then I understand and
agree.

>  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
> commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard
> the government has tried to bully on us.

    I could not agree more.  This is the best point you have made.  A language
choice should be made on real-world constraints.  How much will I have to pay the
programmers?  How many tools are there for a given platform or implementation?  Is
the language by it's definition "safe" to use in critical systems?

> C++/Java and others have
> considerable strengths of their own that make Ada unnecessary.  YES -
> unnecessary.

    I could not agree less.  It is the weaknesses of these languages that Ada
addresses which make Ada (or perhaps the next language to come) very necessary.  I
don't think you will win this particular argument, IMHO.

> C++ and Java are perfect forms of protest.  They were
> developed by a handful of people (not a government bureaucracy like Ada
> was) AND they're incredible languages, whether or not YOU agree.

    Sun's control over Java has left many with a warm and fuzzy non bureaucratic
feeling.
    Would you not agree?

>
> To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or
> technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply
> ludicrous.

    Well just about any absolute statement is "ludicrous".  I think the point here
is that by the *definition* of the language, Ada will produce fewer run-time errors
then say C/C++ or Fortran, period.  Not that any give program will not have any
bugs just because it's Ada.

    It's just a nice to have your range checks, and the like, performed for you up
front.

>
> > - an Ada source is easy to read.
>
> Again, puh-lease.  Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code.

    My experience is that some of the best and worst I have seen is written in Ada.

    The worse from a C programmer writing in Ada.  The best from very talented
software engineer.

    This is most likely the same for any language.

> Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and
> software architecture & design.  As a programming language, Ada doesn't
> begin to address these issues except in the most obtuse way.

    I am not sure what you mean here.  Are you saying C/C++, Java address the
serious problems you mentioned above in a precise way?

> ..., I suggest you read "No Silver Bullet" by
> Fredrick Brooks.

    Thanks.

> Ada is just a programming language.  Languages are NOT
> at the heart of the software engineering crisis.  They are peripheral
> co-conspirators at best.

    Yes but any language that is as modern and feature rich as Ada could not hurt
the problem, IMHO

>
> > The bad point for Ada is that these two advantages concerns a small part of
> > software industry.
>
> >  - it's a threat for a programmer hired by a company: an Ada program is
> >   too early finished and debugged; once the guy has been sacked, the source
> > can be maintained and reworked without him!
>
> AND AGAIN - are you actually implying that there's no Ada code out there
> that wasn't years late, $$millions over budget, and virtually
> unmaintainable?

    But since "Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and
transmittal and
software architecture & design". Getting requirement from government client at
times is the most difficult thing I have had to do in my career.  Ada surely can
not be to blamed for over budget projects.

     It's not that programmers produced maintainable Ada code because there working
with Ada.  The point, I think, here is that the it *easier* to produce code which
is more maintainable,  because Ada seems to be more readable for one.

    Don't you think a human programmer can more clearly understand
This_Is_My_Object better than, say, "ThisIsMyObject"?  Not that you prohibated from
using underscores in C++ code.

> If you believe this, I suggest you read some of the GAO
> reports written in the last 10 years on this topic.  Ever wonder why the
> Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD?  The reason is somple: Ada code
> isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone
> ELSE's code.
>

    So the government can't come up with a good standards or endorse a marketable
programming language but they can say why Ada use does not get you anywhere.  Okay.
;->

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Pat Rogers]

Roga Danar wrote in message
<366D68CD.AFC12CAF@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>...
>Rick Thorne wrote:
>
>>  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
>> commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a
standard
>> the government has tried to bully on us.
>
>    I could not agree more.  This is the best point you have made.
A language
>choice should be made on real-world constraints.  How much will I
have to pay the
>programmers?  How many tools are there for a given platform or
implementation?  Is
>the language by it's definition "safe" to use in critical systems?

While I certainly agree that a reasoned choice should be made, based
upon facts and not fad, I cannot agree that the government tried to
"bully" their contractors.  The policy was "use Ada or make a good
argument for why not (i.e., make the case for a waiver)".  That is
certainly a reasonable approach for a customer to take -- their
providers were using over 450 different languages and dialects.  A
similar situation would be if a given building were wired for 450
different power levels; a phone system using 450 different
protocols; and on and on.  Trying to get things under control was a
good idea.  That doesn't mean Ada was/is perfect, or that other
languages could not be justified, but this idea of Big Brother
trying to "bully" their contractors is just silliness.

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Roga Danar]

Pat Rogers wrote:

> Roga Danar wrote in message
> <366D68CD.AFC12CAF@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>...
> >Rick Thorne wrote:
> >
> >>  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
> >> commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a
> standard
> >> the government has tried to bully on us.
> >
> >    I could not agree more.  This is the best point you have made.
> A language
> >choice should be made on real-world constraints.  How much will I
> have to pay the
> >programmers?  How many tools are there for a given platform or
> implementation?  Is
> >the language by it's definition "safe" to use in critical systems?
>
> While I certainly agree that a reasoned choice should be made, based
> upon facts and not fad, I cannot agree that the government tried to
> "bully" their contractors.  The policy was "use Ada or make a good
> argument for why not (i.e., make the case for a waiver)".  That is
> certainly a reasonable approach for a customer to take -- their
> providers were using over 450 different languages and dialects.  A
> similar situation would be if a given building were wired for 450
> different power levels; a phone system using 450 different
> protocols; and on and on.  Trying to get things under control was a
> good idea.  That doesn't mean Ada was/is perfect, or that other
> languages could not be justified, but this idea of Big Brother
> trying to "bully" their contractors is just silliness.

I should have been more clear.  I have work much of my career under contracts
for DoD and have never felt any trying to bully me or the project.  In fact, if
anything
there was pressure to go to C++ a couple of years ago on a navy project I was
on.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Robert I. Eachus]

   Rick Thorne wrote:

   >  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
   > commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a
   > standard the government has tried to bully on us.

   This is a misunderstanding of the whole idea behind the HOLWG
(high-order language working group) that was the driving force behind
the creation of Ada.  They were charged with reducing the number of
languages used on DoD projects.  At the time the HOLWG was formed the
number of different (high-level not assembly or machine) languages
used was over 800.  Today I would guess that the number in maintained
systems is between 50 and 100, and, in systems in active development,
less than a dozen.  (Let's see, Ada, C, C++, Fortran, Cobol, SQL,
Lisp, Perl, HTML, and a few others, so it could be over a dozen.
Depends on how you count scripting and special purpose languages.)

   Now the HOLWG originally concluded that the optimum number of HLLs
was one, but anyone working on a major Ada (or other language)
development will tell you that while 90% of the development is in Ada,
some is in shell scripts, SQL, and C, where that is the best choice
for that particular piece of the job.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Gautier.DeMontmollin]

[about McDo etc.]

> Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain.  They're all used for large
> system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. 

They may have domains in common.

> Which you choose depends on the development environment you want.  If you
> want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++
> because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities.

Incredible but not portable (including with the same compiler on the
same machine if you change memory model). It's a general problem with
macro-assemblers.

> If you
> want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in
> portability and UI development, use Java.

Or Ada. Recent experience: a port from Ada83 on a platform to Ada95 on another
of a commercial n*100_000 lines program - tens of packages - needed to
change 5 lines (usage of Ada95 math libs). Can you so easily
port Java to another compiler and platform (real question! I'm interested
in a serious answer) ?

> If you really don't care about
> performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete
> government standards, use Ada.  Your call.

Did you try to compare an Ada project compiled by GNAT with cross-package
inlining on, suppress_all, -O2 options, with its C++ counterpart where
*.o files are just linked together ? Again a serious comparision would be
welcome!

[about government, DoD, bureaucrats, other baddies]

Old story!
Are the C++ or Java specifications less bureaucratic ?
Was Ada invented by DoD bureaucrats ?

>> - the most bugs are found at compile time in Ada (a fraction of a second) and
>>   during debugging sessions in Fortran, C, C++ (it may take hours);

> Can you possibly be implying that C++/C compilers don't find bugs, and the
> Ada somehow produces code without runtime errors by virtue of superior
> compiler technology?

I don't. But a good usage of strong typing and subtypes I catch
range errors even at compile time, which, accepted by other languages would
sum up to _months_ of debugging (in my current project) - not to speak about
languages which don't differentiate integers and pointers...

> To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or
> technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply
> ludicrous.

virtual bug-free: no; real few-bugs: yes.

>> - an Ada source is easy to read.

> Again, puh-lease.  Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code.

Was it yours ;-) ?
At least it indicates it was readable enough to allow you to _see_
it was bad code !
There are competitions to determine what some C expressions could _mean_ !

(.......)
> Ada is just a programming language.

Really ? Won't it program for you ?

> Languages are NOT
> at the heart of the software engineering crisis.  They are peripheral
> co-conspirators at best.

Of course the main problem is human.
But I'm afraid you're underestimating the co-conspirators!

(.......)
Why don't you want to accept that people find they might be
more efficient by programming in some language instead of another ?
Or even enjoy programming in that language !

Happy Christmas meal at Le Papillon and don't get so nervous about these
programming languages wars!

-- 
Gautier

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Matthew Heaney]

to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

>> Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++,
>> Windows).  It's a good thing.
> 
> ...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that
> Ada hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known
> universe?  If so, you haven't read much about the intent of the
> language you seem to love so much!  I think one of the reasons Ada has
> failed so miserably in commercial US software development is precisely
> BECAUSE it is a standard the government has tried to bully on us.

I should have added this to my list of reasons Ada isn't as popular as C++:

6)  The mandate.

I don't think the government was trying to "bully us" with the mandate,
they were just trying to manage the process.  But by mandating that Ada
be used for all systems --even those for which it wasn't necessarily
suitable-- they diluted the value of the language in those systems where
it really is an advantage to use Ada.

If you didn't like the policy, that's fine, but don't throw the baby out
with the bath-water.

At the time, the US DoD was the number one consumer of software, and
they had huge software costs that were only growing.  They had to get
their costs down (hundreds of languages were being used), and the
success rate up (many systems weren't even being delivered), and one way
they chose to do that was to commission the design of programming
language that the DoD could use as their standard language for building
real-time, embedded systems.

I think their intentions were good, but the management of that process
wasn't so good, and many programmers share the sentiment that the gov't
was trying to ram Ada down their throats.  

I don't blame you or any other programmer for being offended by this
policy, but don't blame Ada the language.  I myself used to scream "I
can do anything I need to in Fortran.  Why do I need Ada?"  But as I
started to use Ada over the next few weeks and months, I gradually began
to understand what the language was buying me.

Judge the language based on its own merits, separately from any opinion
you may have about how the DoD commissions software systems.  If the
gov't does something stupid, why blame Ada?

As someone pointed out a few years ago, Ada is a large woman, but once
you get your arms around her, you learn to really love her.

> C++/Java and others have considerable strengths of their own that make
> Ada unnecessary.  YES - unnecessary.  C++ and Java are perfect forms
> of protest.  They were developed by a handful of people (not a
> government bureaucracy like Ada was) AND they're incredible languages,
> whether or not YOU agree.

This is a common misconception.  The language was commissioned (paid
for) by the DoD, but it certainly wasn't designed by a "government
bureaucracy."  Ada was designed by Jean Ichbiah, then of Honeywell/Bull,
with input from a group of reviewers comprising members of industry and
academia.

But be careful not to construe this as "design by committee."  As John
Goodenough pointed out in HOPL-II, Jean vetoed committed decisions that
were 12-to-1 against him.

(Another story: I met Jean Sammet at this year's SIGAda conference, and
I asked her about her experience during the Ada design process.  She
told me that she disagreed with many of Ichbiah's decisions, and still
thinks he was wrong.)

So the moral of the story is, don't blame the gov't for putative errors
in the language.  If you want someone to blame, then blame Jean Ichbiah.
(But first, instead of a vague criticism like "the language is flawed,"
state explicitly what your specific problems with the language are.
Then we'll go over your list one item at a time.)

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[dewarr]

In article <m367blyi5l.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
  Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> (Another story: I met Jean Sammet at this year's SIGAda
> conference, and
> I asked her about her experience during the Ada design
> process.  She
> told me that she disagreed with many of Ichbiah's
> decisions, and still
> thinks he was wrong.)


For the record, as someone who was involved in the Ada 83
design process, I do not remember Jean Sammett having any
significant technical comments on the language design at
any time, so if she disagreed with technical decisions that
Jean was making (decisions by the way that were very
thoroughly reviewed by a large number of people), she did
not make these disagreements known to anyone else at the
time. Jean certainly had a lot of important input and ideas
with respect to non-technical aspects of Ada deployment,
but I think you may have misunderstood what she was telling
you!

Robert Dewar

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Marin David Condic]

Matthew Heaney wrote:
> 
> 
> I think their intentions were good, but the management of that process
> wasn't so good, and many programmers share the sentiment that the gov't
> was trying to ram Ada down their throats.
> 
Lets keep in mind one factor: To a large extent "The Mandate" succeeded
in its primary goal. The U.S. Government {Read: "Yours and my tax
dollars" :-)} is no longer supporting 400-some-odd squirly programming
languages that were custom developed along with the processors/systems
they ran on. The Mandate did get the developers to stop looking at
building/supporting their own languages and either a) use Ada or b)
Select something "off the shelf" and justify it.

Remember that years ago, the guys who are today screaming that they can
only use C/C++ were the same guys who were screaming that C/Fortran/Etc.
were impossible to use on their custom little embedded board so they
*had* to go develop their own compiler for their own language or The
Whole World Will Come To An End!

What they were really saying was this: "I enjoy writing compilers. Let
me give you a bunch of bad reasons why I can't possibly use a 'standard'
language." What they are saying today is "I like using C/C++. Let me
give you a bunch of bad reasons why I can't possibly use Ada."

{Parenthetical note: The only good excuse for "Why I can't use Ada and
have to use C" that I've heard/used is this: "I have a C compiler for
this Whozits Processor Board that came with the board. There is no Ada
compiler and a port would cost too much/take too long/not have the whole
kitten kaboodle of support tools I've got with the C compiler that came
with this board."}

The world doesn't really change much, does it? :-)

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
Ph: 561.796.8997         Fx: 561.796.4669

"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman
she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill
again."

        -- TV listing for the Wizard of Oz

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <366E97F8.776355C4@pwfl.com> Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes:

  > {Parenthetical note: The only good excuse for "Why I can't use Ada and
  > have to use C" that I've heard/used is this: "I have a C compiler for
  > this Whozits Processor Board that came with the board. There is no Ada
  > compiler and a port would cost too much/take too long/not have the whole
  > kitten kaboodle of support tools I've got with the C compiler that came
  > with this board."}

    How many times have I heard this, then turned around with a list
of validated Ada compilers for that board, often with more than one
for every RTOS under consideration.

    The main exceptions were Intel x86 boards without x87 chips, and
TMS320C2x boards.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Marin David Condic]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> In article <366E97F8.776355C4@pwfl.com> Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes:
> 
>   > {Parenthetical note: The only good excuse for "Why I can't use Ada and
>   > have to use C" that I've heard/used is this: "I have a C compiler for
>   > this Whozits Processor Board that came with the board. There is no Ada
>   > compiler and a port would cost too much/take too long/not have the whole
>   > kitten kaboodle of support tools I've got with the C compiler that came
>   > with this board."}
> 
>     How many times have I heard this, then turned around with a list
> of validated Ada compilers for that board, often with more than one
> for every RTOS under consideration.
> 
>     The main exceptions were Intel x86 boards without x87 chips, and
> TMS320C2x boards.
> --
> 
I was thinking more along the lines of some of the small controller
cards you can buy which are supplied with a C compiler and PC based
loading/eeprom-programming toolkit. Z-World is a good example where you
can buy one of their Z180 based boards with a development environment
for a few hundred bucks. Sure, someone *might* have a cross-compiler
targeting a Z180, but how much does it cost? Will it generate linked
images that will be compatible with the Z-World loader, eeprom burner
and debugger? Will you have to cobble some kind of development
environment & tools together to get the job done? At what point have I
spent more money and wasted more time trying to use Ada to gain whatever
benefits it offers than is economically justified? If I can buy the
board & development environment (in C) for $300-$400 and the programming
job is going to take 2 or 3 months, it's just not worth the $20,000 or
so I'd have to pay someone to provide an Ada port to the Z180. Not to
mention all the headaches & uncertainty about if it is going to work
with the rest of the environment.

We recently did a small rocket control that was based on some flavor of
68HC16 processor. It was built into an engine control that normally
operates a Dodge Neon. It was a proof of concept kind of job which
wasn't going to hang around very long. We pretty much did the job in
assembler and utilized some available home grown software with an
emulator pod & it's supplied software. I imagine we could have come up
with a way to do it in Ada, but the job was over in such a short span of
time and was on such a tight budget that it didn't make much sense to
try to go find an Ada compiler, etc. when we pretty much had the action
covered with what was at hand. (Do you know of a port of Ada to a 68HC16
that generates pure code, produces S-records and IEEE symbol tables? It
has to generate really efficient code, but if it does, we might be able
to use it in the next go-around.)

You get to use an RTOS? Some guys have all the luck! ;-)

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
Ph: 561.796.8997         Fx: 561.796.4669
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman
she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill
again."

        -- TV listing for the Wizard of Oz

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Tucker Taft]

Marin David Condic (condicma@bogon.pwfl.com) wrote:

: I was thinking more along the lines of some of the small controller
: cards you can buy which are supplied with a C compiler and PC based
: loading/eeprom-programming toolkit. 

: ...
: ... (Do you know of a port of Ada to a 68HC16
: that generates pure code, produces S-records and IEEE symbol tables? It
: has to generate really efficient code, but if it does, we might be able
: to use it in the next go-around.)

For this sort of market, we have a version of our Ada 95 front end
which generates optimized, readable ANSI C as its intermediate language, and
depends only on the standard C implementation of setjmp/longjmp to 
implement exceptions, tasking, abort, and ATC.  We include #line
directives in the generated C so that a normal C debugger will show
the Ada source rather than the intermediate C source when debugging.

Let us know if this technology might be of interest...

: You get to use an RTOS? Some guys have all the luck! ;-)

: MDC
: -- 
: Marin David Condic
: Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
: United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
: M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
: Ph: 561.796.8997         Fx: 561.796.4669
: ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

--
-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Burlington, MA  USA
An AverStar Company

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[dewarr]

In article <EACHUS.98Dec10115116@spectre.mitre.org>,
  eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:
>
>     How many times have I heard this, then turned around
> with a list
> of validated Ada compilers for that board, often with
> more than one
> for every RTOS under consideration.
>
>     The main exceptions were Intel x86 boards without x87
> chips, and
> TMS320C2x boards.

Are you talking Ada 83 here? I guess so since x86 without
x87 is more contemporary with Ada 83. In that case it
should be pointed out that ALL Alsys cross-products came
with a full IEEE floating-point simulator (I wrote it :-)
that allowed operation without hardware floating point.

Robert Dewar

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <74q94e$pbd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:

  > Are you talking Ada 83 here? I guess so since x86 without
  > x87 is more contemporary with Ada 83. In that case it
  > should be pointed out that ALL Alsys cross-products came
  > with a full IEEE floating-point simulator (I wrote it :-)
  > that allowed operation without hardware floating point.

   Agreed and understood.  Unfortunately, the issue was validated Ada
(83) compilers.  There were at least two cases I know of where the
decision was to require an additional validation without the
(optional) FP chip instead of just allowing all code that required
floating point to be generated assuming FP hardware.  One was the
Desktop III contract. (I think that is the right Roman numeral.)
Support for desktop machines without floating point processors added
more to the contract cost than could possibly have been saved by
buying machines without the FP chips, and I doubt that any machines
without FP chips were ever bought under the contract--except for
testing.

   This isn't/wasn't/shouldn't be an Ada issue, but it was seen as
one.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[P.S. Norby]

Matthew Heaney wrote:
> 
> I should have added this to my list of reasons Ada isn't as popular as C++:
> 
> 6)  The mandate.

> I don't think the government was trying to "bully us" with the mandate,
> they were just trying to manage the process. 

> 
> I think their intentions were good, but the management of that process
> wasn't so good, and many programmers share the sentiment that the gov't
> was trying to ram Ada down their throats.
> 
 
> As someone pointed out a few years ago, Ada is a large woman, but once
> you get your arms around her, you learn to really love her.
> 

I sometimes think all the ex-hippie types don't want to use Ada because
of its association with DoD, and all the curmudgeon types don't want to
use Ada because it's named after a woman (and she'd not that big.. look
at the pictures ;-) ).

How do I put half of a smiley on that statement?

-- 
P.S. Norby

"No excuses.  No embarrasment.  No apologies...
 Ada -- the most trusted and powerful programming language
 on earth, or in space." -- S. Tucker Taft
 
\\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\ 
( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)
///    ///    ///    ///    ///    ///    ///    ///    /// 
(Speaking only for myself)

RE: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <to.reply-0312980902120001@129.197.97.40>, to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

> Look, too, at the Usenet news groups.  Compare the traffic on
> comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*.  The Ada newgroup
> is orders of magnitude smaller.

comp.lang.ada is of a size where one can keep up with all posts.

But I do not understand the merit of choosing a language just because the
trouble calls are more voluminous.

Larry Kilgallen

Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Roga Danar]

Rick Thorne wrote:

> Roga Danar wrote:
>
> >  If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them.
>
> *contemptuous chuckle*
>
> Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend?  Check out the want ads.  MY
> "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are
> literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++.

Also, were there EVER many Ada jobs in the newspaper?  This does not tell me if
there is somewhat more demand, somewhat less or about the same compared to say,
10 years ago.  When was the use of Ada at it's Apex? ;-> (Sorry, could not help
myself)

Okay.  I was just looking for some *statistics*.
What facts you have are anecdotal and/or nothing new to anyone.

Also, I really didn't mean to get your "panties in a bunch" over this.
If I may quote the movie Real Genius "There are many decaffeinated brands on the
market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

    I still put the question to the group:

    Are there statistics which show the number of new and/or legacy Ada
developement/research projects in the US and world-wide?

> What statistical sampling do I need other than this?

To support the claim that Ada is "rotting" (i.e.. new project declining) you do
need more.
 If you don't know the answer to this question then might I suggest a course in
statistics.

> Yup, Ada IS a great language.  I
> agree.  The Edsel was a great car, too.

FYI, the Edsel was a death-trap.  It was very dangerous to drive.
I have driven one myself.

>
> Look, too, at the Usenet news groups.  Compare the traffic on
> comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*.  The Ada newgroup
> is orders of magnitude smaller.  Look at the journals.  When's the last
> time Ada was of the cover of IEEE Software?  Walk into Computer Literacy
> or any other book store carrying geek literature.  What's the ratio of
> C++/Java books to Ada?  It's easily orders of magnitude in difference.
>
> > Since Ada is a great language and as many advantages and few drawbacks
> > compared
> > with the more popular languages like C/C++, Java, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol
> > etc... It
> > is only a matter of time and marketing that Ada is placed, rightfully, as the
> > language for the next millennium, IMHO.

Hyperbole on my part, granted.

     > Take a look at the language technologies that have
     > absolutely left Ada in the dust: Java, C++, Perl, Python, etc.
     > Why?  Simple: TIME AND MARKETING.

Perhaps because the syntax for these are very similar?  Certainly time had nothing
to do with Java's popularity.  Can you support this claim?

> I haven't been out of work a DAY because of it, nor will
> I be out of work for the forseeable future.

Ditto.  I have more work then I can handle.

> I work in Silicon Valley as a software consultant and I promise you, sir,
> Ada isn't on the horizon of anyone - ANYONE - I regard as a client, ...

Really?  I turned down a high paying (thank you very much) Ada contract at
Lockheed-Martin in Sunnyvale, CA, hmmmm, perhaps you know of them. ;=>

FYI, I worked in the Silicon Valley on 3 different contracts which save one was all
new Ada development.

-- Michael Smith
President, AlphaSoft, Inc.

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Rick Thorne]

In article <366822F5.D80741EE@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>,
job_unspam@no.love.for.spam.alphasoft-inc.com wrote:

> If I may quote the movie Real Genius "There are many decaffeinated
> brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

;-)

Thanx for this!  I actually have a friend or two who said the same thing
when them saw my responses here.  If I may offer a quote of my own: "The
greatest thing my children taught me was to laugh at myself."  I'm
laughing.  That's good, isn't it?

> I still put the question to the group:
> Are there statistics which show the number of new and/or legacy
> Ada developement/research projects in the US and world-wide?

My question too, sir.

Like the rest of you, I have a mortgage to pay and children to feed.  I
also want to retire in the next 10-15 years (I'm 40).  I really want to be
where the action is, and I'm simply unconvinced that Ada's doing anything
but going away.  Can ANYONE offer me anything to the contrary?  I'm
sincerely interested in hearing otherwise.  I'm an experienced Ada man who
has moved on to the lush, green (if ugly) C++ Pastures and I'm grazing
blissfully in the Javalands as well.  I don't see the demand for these
languages doing anything but increasing, and I see nothing but the
opposite for Ada. Can ANYONE offer me evidence to the contrary?

Thank you for your respectful answers to my OWN caffinated responses.

Sincerely,

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Marin David Condic]

Rick Thorne wrote:
> 
> My question too, sir.
> 
> Like the rest of you, I have a mortgage to pay and children to feed.  I
> also want to retire in the next 10-15 years (I'm 40).  I really want to be
> where the action is, and I'm simply unconvinced that Ada's doing anything
> but going away.  Can ANYONE offer me anything to the contrary?  I'm
> sincerely interested in hearing otherwise.  I'm an experienced Ada man who
> has moved on to the lush, green (if ugly) C++ Pastures and I'm grazing
> blissfully in the Javalands as well.  I don't see the demand for these
> languages doing anything but increasing, and I see nothing but the
> opposite for Ada. Can ANYONE offer me evidence to the contrary?
> 
To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. We can
stand around complaining that big companies with project managers who
know very little about languages make choices for lower quality
languages instead of Ada. *OR* We can just go off and start building
things in Ada and making them available until it starts to generate its
critical mass needed for a long and prosperous life.

Compiler vendors have done a good job of making Ada available to the
backyard software mechanic either free or for nominal costs. Anyone who
wants to program in Ada can do so and I think these guys deserve a round
of applause for that effort. (I'd still like to see compilers targeted
to even more embedded processors - but that's my particular niche.)

There are certainly a number of people who have produced and made
available useful tools, utilities, reusable components and other
applications in Ada which are available for the cost of a download. If
more of us produced software and put it out there, we'd be adding to
that critical mass. Ask yourself what kinds of things you'd like to have
available when programming in Ada and start building it & making it
available.

And when we *do* get to make the language selection for a project, do we
pick Ada or do we knuckle in to the C++/Java/Whatever pressure around
us?

So where you have a choice to do so, why not take your favorite set of
reusable components or hacker utilities or whatever things are
programmed in Ada and stick them on a web page somewhere? In particular,
make it known/available to universities because if the next generation
of programmers comes out knowing/appreciating Ada, they'll be generating
the demand.

-- 
Marin D. Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
Ph: 561.796.8997         Fx: 561.796.4669

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."

        --  G.B. Shaw

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Robert A Duff]

Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes:

> To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. ...

You're replying to someone who's goal in life is to retire at age
50..55.

;-)

- Bob
-- 
Change robert to bob to get my real email address.  Sorry.

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Marin David Condic]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> Marin David Condic <condicma@pwfl.com> writes:
> 
> > To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. ...
> 
> You're replying to someone who's goal in life is to retire at age
> 50..55.
> 
> ;-)
> 
Retire to do what? Sit back and rot along with all that software? ;-)

I'd like to retire next year. Or even this afternoon - if I could work
that out with the Lottery Commission. But if I did, I'd do so to persue
other interests besides developing engine controls in Ada. Like maybe
writing the Great American Operating System in Ada. Or maybe tilt at
some windmills and make Ada the new language of choice for programming
Financial Analysis applications.

I guess I'm one of the crowd who has grown tired of those who simply
follow the crowd and cave in to C++/Java/Whatever because that's the way
the wind is blowing. I'd rather take the useful technology that's
available and build more out of it than waste my time calling other
people names because they won't give in to whatever trend I think they
ought to follow.

-- 
Marin D. Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
Ph: 561.796.8997         Fx: 561.796.4669

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."

        --  G.B. Shaw

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Rick Thorne]

In article <366D6BF8.B1F4C1C0@hercii.mar.lmco.com>, Jerry Petrey
<gpetrey@hercii.mar.lmco.com> wrote:

> Well said.   To me, picking the ideal job is more than just money or
> following the trend.
> I like woking in real-time embedded applications and  using a well
> designed, safe language. [-]

Another good group of points.  Obviously, someone in my (our) career field
needs to consider more than just a programming language.  Espcialyy for
those of us with family and personal interests (music, in my case), we
need to live were the world in compatible with our lives.

However, some of that comes with our profession as well.  Here in Silly
Valley, it's a cookie jar for C++/Java folks (it ain't so bad for Ada
people either, truth be told).  I doubt I'd have nearly as much success in
Minot North Dakota.  As others have (correctly) pointed out to me, there
IS a robust niche market and there's one here under my nose in San Jose.

Thanx,

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[David Botton]

I agree.

I am already working hard on:

1. A clean and easy to use cross platform (Win32, X, Java/JDK) GUI packages
2. COM access as easy as VB for Ada.

On The Ada Source Code Treasury, I have a section called called projects at:

http://www.botton.com/ada/projects

I am more then willing to donate and help to put up any projects or
proposals for the creation of reusable open software components. (or for
anything Ada for that matter)

Ada has real advantages. Lets make Ada real usable, real easy, and real
open.

Ada can rise to sit as the leading language in many domains now held by Java
and C++, but not with out the tools and components to make it easy for all
levels, programmers and engineers, to develop software.

David Botton


Marin David Condic wrote in message <366C2564.1C17E3EE@pwfl.com>...

>To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. We can
>stand around complaining that big companies with project managers who
>know very little about languages make choices for lower quality
>languages instead of Ada. *OR* We can just go off and start building
>things in Ada and making them available until it starts to generate its
>critical mass needed for a long and prosperous life.

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Rick Thorne]

In article <366C2564.1C17E3EE@pwfl.com>, diespammer@pwfl.com wrote:

> To a large extent, the destiny of Ada is what we make of it. We can
> stand around complaining that big companies with project managers who
> know very little about languages make choices for lower quality
> languages instead of Ada. *OR* We can just go off and start building
> things in Ada and making them available until it starts to generate its
> critical mass needed for a long and prosperous life.

> [snip the remainder of this excellent response]

Thank you for this most rational reply.  It's clear, well-composed, and
truthful.  It does, unfortunately, also tell me the bad news: Ada's hardly
a settled tool in our business.  Your reply, Marin, is typical of the more
thoughtful ones: it's more "let's make Ada the technology of choice in
spite of its lean market appeal."  A noble gesture, I think, but unlikely.

I thank you all for your responses and apologize for some of my tone.  I
may have come off as an arrogant brat, but I do like and respect you all. 
I've been trying to get answers to my very important career choice
questions, and since the I Ching was unclear I decided to try the direct
approach.  I've found this in life: if you want a response, ask a
question.  If you want and answer, piss someone off.  It's contrary to me
nature, but it DOES work.

Thanx again.

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Marin David Condic]

Rick Thorne wrote:
> 
> Thank you for this most rational reply.  It's clear, well-composed, and
> truthful.  It does, unfortunately, also tell me the bad news: Ada's hardly
> a settled tool in our business.  Your reply, Marin, is typical of the more
> thoughtful ones: it's more "let's make Ada the technology of choice in
> spite of its lean market appeal."  A noble gesture, I think, but unlikely.
> 
I appreciate the compliment. Let me say this about the market appeal:
Ada has become entrenched rather nicely in certain parts of the market
and is not going to go away any time soon. We've built a lot of
infrastructure around Ada here at Pratt in the embedded software arena
and we're not going to give that up. There are lots of others who build
hard realtime & safety critical applications who use Ada - not because
of some "mandate" but because it is the best available tool for the job.
So while Ada may not be the language in which people are currently
building Internet applications, that doesn't mean it is going to
disappear.

As for career choices, keep in mind that a good software engineer is not
good only in one language. I've programmed embedded systems in a whole
variety of languages and while I prefer Ada, there are times when Ada is
simply not available for the job at hand, so we go with C or assembler
or whatever is needed to get the job done. So if you go off and get a
job programming in Java that doesn't mean you can't persue an interest
in Ada and potentially find ways of utilizing it either on the job or as
a sideline interest. I picked my job because I enjoy being involved in
embedded realtime systems and military hardware. The fact that this is
done largely in Ada is nice too, but if we got word tomorrow that we
were now going to program controls in Cobol, that wouldn't mean it was
time to quit.

MDC
-- 
Marin D. Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
Ph: 561.796.8997         Fx: 561.796.4669

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."

        --  G.B. Shaw

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Rick Thorne]

In article <366D56C8.B0F0D6F0@pwfl.com>, diespammer@pwfl.com wrote:


> I appreciate the compliment. Let me say this about the market appeal:
> Ada has become entrenched rather nicely in certain parts of the market
> and is not going to go away any time soon. [-]

Excellent point, Marin, and a very encouraging one at that.  What you're
identifying here is the fact that Ada has a very stable niche market.  The
same can be said of other excellent software technologies: Smalltalk,
LISP, Yourden/DeMarco structured design/analysis, etc.  This IS
encouraging considering how viable some of these niches can be and often
are.  There is considerable momentum in these areas; I agree and willingly
conceed this point.

I'm still interested in knowing about Ada in more commercial non-aerospace
markets.  Anyone got news?!?

> So while Ada may not be the language in which people are currently
> building Internet applications, that doesn't mean it is going to
> disappear.

Very well put.  OK, OK - Ada's back in the tool box.  Granted, it'll be a
less used tool for now, and I guarantee I'll need to sharpen it 'cuz all
my Java and C++ tools are banging it around, but it's back.

> As for career choices, keep in mind that a good software engineer is not
> good only in one language.

... or only one element of the lifecycle.  As much as I love programming,
my specialty is really UML/OMT OOD/OOA, and those are wonderful tool very
much in demand in the software engineering world AND much more at the
heart of the software engineering productivity crisis.  I agree again with
you, Marin - there's more to our profession than a single language or any
OTHER topic under the software engineering umbrella.

Thanx for the good ideas - hope I can return the favor another time.

Rick

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: Ada rotting? (was: What ada 83 compiler is *best*)

[Chris Morgan]

to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

> Very well put.  OK, OK - Ada's back in the tool box.  Granted, it'll be a
> less used tool for now, and I guarantee I'll need to sharpen it 'cuz all
> my Java and C++ tools are banging it around, but it's back.

In some ways Ada is sharper than ever. It has been described as a
language ahead of its time in the sense that personally owning a
computer capable of running a full Ada compiler back in 1983 was quite
a feat. Nowadays you can buy one for about the price of a good CRT
monitor. 

In my last job the make process consisted of "well I write the names
of all my classes with special macros into this template, then I run
this Perl tool over the template which does some stuff and then runs
imake which produces the makefile, and then ALL I have to do is type
make and it builds it".

In the previous job to that I used to tell GNAT where all my source
code was (depending on the particular project) and then do gnatmake
name_of_main_unit, end of story, so for me the transition to C++ was
one of being deprived of sharp useful tools and being given blunt
dangerous ones. Admittedly there are better ways in Java and C++ that
that, but none I've heard are better than gnatmake was/is for my
purposes.

Cheers,

Chris

-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com>		http://www.mihalis.net
	         "At least my mother isn't on the 
                  cover of Crack Whore magazine"

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Matthew Heaney]

to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) writes:

> Look, too, at the Usenet news groups.  Compare the traffic on
> comp.lang.ada to comp.lang.c++.* and comp.lang.java.*.  The Ada newgroup
> is orders of magnitude smaller.

One reason programmers write to a newsgroup is to answer technical
questions about the language.  If fewer people post to comp.lang.ada,
perhaps the reason is that Ada is simpler to learn!

>  Walk into Computer Literacy or any other book store carrying geek
> literature.  What's the ratio of C++/Java books to Ada?  It's easily
> orders of magnitude in difference.

One reason programmers read geek literature is to answer technical
questions about the language.  If there are fewer geek books about Ada,
perhaps the reason is that Ada is simpler to learn!
 

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Jeff Carter]

Rick Thorne wrote:
> 
> Roga Danar wrote:
>
> ... 
> 
> >  If you have any statistics on the "rotting" of Ada I would love to see them.
> 
> *contemptuous chuckle*
> 
> Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend?  Check out the want ads.  MY
> "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are
> literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++.  What statistical
> sampling do I need other than this?  Yup, Ada IS a great language.  I
> agree.  The Edsel was a great car, too.  How many people do you seeing
> driving them, let alone BUYING them?
> 

I hate to tell you this, but the next time you fly in a modern airliner,
the fly-by-wire software controlling it was written in Ada. Most of the
air-traffic-control software in the world, including growing parts in
the USA, is written in Ada. Your life depends on a rotting language.

-- 
Jeff Carter
E-mail: carter commercial-at innocon [period | full stop] com
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <366C0197.49B15B12@spam.innocon.com> Jeff Carter <spam.carter.not@spam.innocon.com> writes:

   > Why don't you read your Sunday paper, friend?  Check out the want ads.  MY
   > "statistical" survery tells me this: for every Ada job opening there are
   > literally - LITERALLY - dozens for Java and C++.  What statistical
   > sampling do I need other than this? 

   Let's see, I have worked with software engineers who didn't know
Ada, and they were productive in Ada before they knew enough about the
application to make serious changes to existing code.  (Literally, I
could take an Ada package spec and ask them to implement it, and any
discussion would be about data-types, real-time constraints, etc.)

   On the other hand, it takes six to nine months to bring someone up
to speed in C++, if you are lucky.

   So if I need an Ada software engineer, I'll talk about the
application domain in the ad.  If I need a C++ programmer, C++ will be
a requirement.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Rick Thorne]

In article <366C0197.49B15B12@spam.innocon.com>, Jeff Carter
<spam.carter.not@spam.innocon.com> wrote:

> I hate to tell you this, but the next time you fly in a modern airliner,
> the fly-by-wire software controlling it was written in Ada. Most of the
> air-traffic-control software in the world, including growing parts in
> the USA, is written in Ada. Your life depends on a rotting language.

Is your point that because the air traffic control market is Ada turf that
Ada is alive and well?  I dunno if I buy that argument at all.

Perhaps you can help me: is there a point to your reply?

If you're saying that Ada isn't a rotting language because 0.3% of
software development environments are still using it, I hardly think your
argument is valid.  The space shuttle software is written in Jovial.  It's
man-rated software too.  Could I conclude then that Jovial's on the
rise?!?

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?

Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[Steve O'Neill]

Rick Thorne wrote:

> The space shuttle software is written in Jovial.

Ooops!! Wrong again, care to try for double jeopardy where the stakes get
really high?

Once again in this thread you demonstrate that you are not afraid to speak of
which you do not know.  Shuttle software is written in the HAL/S language.  An
technically excellent but rather obscure language much akin to Ada.  To my
knoweldge the HAL language is used in only two places - JPL and NASA.  Now
*that's* a  niche market!

> Could I conclude then that Jovial's on the rise?!?

You never know... If we can get everyone to believe that it's the 'place to
be' then I'm sure that folks will be running to it in droves. ;)

Thanks for adding a little excitement to the new group.

Steve O'Neill
Software Mercenary

p.s. Harried father of two?  You haven't met harried unless those two are
teenage girls!