From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,42490cad53ee37fa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr21.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: NOACE- End of the road for Ada? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.167.59.232 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com 1110739355 ST000 64.167.59.232 (Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:42:35 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:42:35 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: SCSYQN_@OHV[RVT[AROR__TDFZ\@@FXLM@TDOCQDJ@_@FNTCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:42:35 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9328 Date: 2005-03-13T18:42:35+00:00 List-Id: "Michael Card" wrote in message news:thehouseofcards-A7CEC0.21331309032005@news.verizon.net... > Hello everyone- > > It seems that everywhere I look, I see articles about the DoD world > being anxious to purge Ada from all their systems in favor of C++ and > Java. For example, see > The move toward Java has nothing to do with whether Java is superior to Ada. It's not. Is it easier to learn than Ada? No. Is it more efficient than Ada? Certainly not. Is it easier to code than Ada? Not at all. Does it produce better executables? Not at all. So why is it taking over the programming landscape like kudzu or crabgrass on an Alabama lawn? I attended a seminar presented by a U.S. Navy Admiral a couple of years ago on the subject of software in the Navy. He droned on for a while about his view on this subject and finally came to Ada. His opening remarks to this topic, "And then there was the Ada fiasco!" In his comments he noted that Ada was hard to learn, even after hiring the best teachers the Navy could find, there were no good tools available for development and maintenance, all the programmers hated it, no one wanted to support it, everything they did related to Ada created more trouble than it was worth. This perception of Ada throughout much of the Navy, and throughout much of the DoD persists. I work daily with DoD people who believe Ada was one of the most idiotic initiatives the DoD ever pursued. At the school where I teach, Ada was once required. Now it is hardly mentioned (except in some of my classes). Sometimes, when I visit the office of one of my colleagues, I see old copies of Ada books (most Ada 83) on the bookshelves. The only two languages most people want to acknowledge are Java and C++, and of those, Java gets the larger share of attention. Java, for all its faults, is the current darling of decision-makers and academics. Many of my students find Ada easier to learn after they have learned Java. Most of them hate C++, but the have to learn it to successfully complete their required class in computer graphics. There are almost no circumstances where they must use Ada, let alone know anything about it. I continue to believe that Ada is as good, often better, as a programming language than either Java or C++. But that is not a widespread belief throughout the DoD. Rather, the more dominant view is that Ada is now an old-fashioned language, more in the category of PL/I, COBOL, old versions of Fortran, etc. It is seen as old, in part because it is regarded as a language of the early 1980's. Java is the language of now. Ada is the language of then. For many, C++ is also the language of then. There is no large company currently pushing Ada. There are no substantial financial resources behind it. Even the companies that publish Ada compilers, with the exception of Ada Core, RR Software, and Irvine Compiler, are focusing their attention and their advertsising dollars on other products. One Navy official said to me a couple of years ago, "In five years you won't be able to find anyone supporting Ada." That was nearly five years ago, and he was wrong. But how wrong was he? Does IBM take its (Rational) Ada compiler seriously anymore? Ada certainly does not deserved the reputation it has among DoD officials. But, as long as the majority of promotional dollars are devoted to touting the (dubious) benefits of technologies, even as those technologies are inferior to Ada for military software, Ada will suffer. Who will champion Ada? Currently, no one with influence or power will come forward to encourage the use of Ada. Sometimes I speak with developers who prefer Ada and still choose C++, not because they prefer it but because it is the easiest choice to make. Courage is not a common characteristic of DoD developers. To preach too openly the benefits of Ada in the halls of a contractor's office or the corridors of a DoD facility is to risk being branded "some kind of nut." I have been called an "Ada bigot," more times than I can count -- this, in spite of my continual assertion that we should pick the right tools for the right job -- and the right tool is often, but not always, Ada. Time for lunch. Richard Riehle