How to Make Ada more widely used?

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura .net!mlb.semi.harris.com!F22!mjohnson@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mark Johnson)]

I would like to start a discussion on what it would take to make
Ada a more "widely used" language than it is today.

QUESTION:
What would it take to make Ada a more "widely used" language than
it is now?
(and please, no side issues on how widely used it is now, etc.)


MY ANSWER: (2 Parts)

1) Make a subset language of Ada 83, called say 'A+', which does
not include tasking, generic's, and exceptions.  This language
would not require a special runtime, would be much cheaper to
build a compiler for, and would still provide many of the good
qualities that Ada has over some other languages, such as,
readability, strong type checking, encapsulation, etc..

OK, so maybe you wouldn't be able to use this subset on defense
work.  No big deal, so you use Ada instead of 'A+'.  But, since
'A+' would be a subset of Ada, all of the A+ code could be reused
during Ada development.  And some of the Ada development could be
done on cheaper 'A+' compilers.

I believe that this subset would be more widely use by commercial
companies and educational facilities (than Ada presently is). 
For one, the compiler would be cheaper.  Two, you would not have
to pay a licensing fee for every application you sold because you
wouldn't have the specialized runtime.

Plus, It would be great to have something like this for embedded
development.  (I can add my own exception checking if needed.)

2) Create and "strongly support" a standard interface between the
Ada (NOT A+) compiler and the Ada runtime.  First of all, I say
"strongly support" because the compiler vendors could not be
forced to change their runtime designs overnight.  May be force
the standard interface by 1998 or 2000?  A standard interface
would benefit everyone.  Lets face it, a good compiler and a good
runtime do no always go together.  It would create a new market
for third-party Ada runtime's which would give developers a
chance to choose a runtime which would better fit their needs. 
(no more tweaking the one you are forced to use).

Are these bad ideas?

Mark Johnson
Harris Corp (GASD)
mjohnson@su19bb.ess.harris.com

My opinions are my own, but may be shared by others.

"Imperfections are the differences between perfection and
perceived perfection"