Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

["stephane richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net>]

"Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message 
news:414E2306.6030404@acm.org...
> stephane richard escreveu:
> > "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
> > news:414B6E62.9070402@acm.org...
> >
> >> Larry Kilgallen escreveu:
> >>
> >> If management allow them to use it in the actual project!
> >>
> >> -- Cesar Rabak
> >>
> >
> >
> > Indeed, but what I don't understand is:
> >
> > 1. How and why is it so hard to make them understand that C or C++
> > are not necessarily the solution to their problem simply because of
> > it's popularity.
>
> I have some field experience that can enlight this. From a very high
> level (say management) perspective, the technology is less present and
> all languages seem to be similar. Technicalities are just 'details' and
> big projects have much more than just coding as critical and risky phases.
>
> > Sure, back then, anyone that would have given any language away would
> > have made it popular (BASIC comes to mind ;-).
> >
>
> Although I see you intended as joke, the truth is that given a
> technology backed up by good marketing and adequate (healthier) financed
> companies will be considered first.
>
> Also, as the software engineers will have to know much more than just a
> programming language (Database, GUIs, Modelling, etc.), the available 
> knowledge by the average working force is considered the appropriate 
> choice.
>
> I insist I do not second these attitudes!
>
Agreed, you're totally right about that.  And that's why most project 
management software come with a "extend deadline or hire more resource to 
compensate but no matter what it's gonna cost more than planned" feature. 
;-).   Indeed it is meant as a joke, but even without knowledge per se, Ada 
would probably lessen the use of the afore mentionned feature just by the 
fact that there is less "surprises" in the development process.  Also by the 
fact that unlike C/C++ and most other "fashionable" language by the time the 
Ada code compiles, it works whereas, in other languages,  by the time the 
code compiles, it executes, but works?

> > 2. I think that if any manager or any other person capable of making
> > a "which language" to use decision, if they took 5 minutes to do
> > proper searches, would see the "real" benefits of using ada both as a
> > programming language and as a "economical" solution for the lesser
> > time to debug only.
> >
>
> True. But it is hard to make a business plan on these grounds because the 
> focus today is not in production of code but integration of already built 
> packages.
>
> Even if a system were to be built from scratch, it is acknoledged coding 
> takes about 10% to 20% of all project resources.
>
Indeed for the case of "built from scratch" projects, I would evaluate more 
t=like 20% to 40% if required for coding if not relying on existing code 
base or libraries (assuming no one in the world ever did anything close to 
the intended project).  but I do get your point however, and to me it's a 
sad but true reality.  To me, this is not take software engineering and 
software development for their true meaning that htey were intended for. 
Now everyone wants someone to build their solution in their basement in the 
words of "martin david convic" <- right name?  everyone thinks that the 
"garden variety programmer" is all they need.  If only they could see the 
alternate reality that they are missing.

> > 3. The only thing stopping them, in my book is none of the above.
> > The availability of Ada developers just isn't as big as the "popular"
> > languages.
>
> Yes. In fact I dare to say Ada technology is 'invisible' for a big part of 
> the IT industry.
>
Based on your knowledge and experience.  Could you explain the why of this? 
Like you I do realize that what you say is indeed true.  But I like to know 
why things are the way they are.  And from one professional to another, 
would you make that same decision, knowing Ada as you do?  My speculation on 
this is simple, they choose what they choose because they don't know any 
better, and don't have time to know better.  To me, these are unacceptable 
reasons to base a decision on, especially as far as a development project 
goes.  Yet it seems to happen all the time, why do think that is?

> >
> > 4. It seems that people have the wrong conception of "development
> > tools" as well.  In essence, if it don't operate like microsoft's
> > visual studio IDEs it ain't good.  Big mistake to make that
> > assumption.
>
> I cannot agree more.
>
> > Sure microsoft IDE's aren't all that bad.  But in my
> > opinion, they sure could be better both in features and integration
> > with compilers/linkers etc.  GPS 2.XX (think it's 00 but not sure)
> > from Ada Core Technologies, anyone seen it in action?  From what I've
> > heard, Microsoft can't even begin to compete with what GPS offers to
> > the "whole" development process.
>
> I think here we have the real point. GPS may have some nice features but 
> still lacks as well too much things to be able to really make a 
> difference. . . in addition to its own technology (compiler, gnatmake, 
> project files) we would need a lot of effort to have it integrating with 
> UML modellers, documentation generation tools, etc. to make it really 
> stand in the radar of the developers that still do not use Ada.
>
Indeed, I know there are tools, I have a project on my website for each of 
these features, I have UML to Ada generator somewhere, I have CORBA 
integration bindings (PolyORB is a good example and there is more). 
Ada2HTML producers and the likes, the key is none of htese work with the 
others in an integrated environment.  the tools exist, now we just have to 
make them work together.

> >
> > On a different note, I was happy to get an email yesterday from a
> > student, new to Ada95 in West Washington University.  It's good to
> > see american universities teaching Ada :-).
> >
> Yes. It gives a warm feeling.

Stephane Richard
"Ada World" webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com