From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 1 Jun 93 17:43:29 GMT From: 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) Subject: How to Make Ada more widely used? Message-ID: <1993Jun1.174329.16294@mlb.semi.harris.com> List-Id: 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"