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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <412d993e_2@news.tm.net.my> <412DCEF9.8020201@noplace.com> <412eeb64_2@news.tm.net.my> Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <9xKXc.197$8d1.113@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:52:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.216.254 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1093629125 66.81.216.254 (Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:52:05 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:52:05 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3090 Date: 2004-08-27T17:52:05+00:00 List-Id: "Ed Falis" wrote in message news:opsdeaw7ox5afhvo@localhost... > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:10:34 +0800, Adrian Hoe > wrote: > > > But, what did GNAT, Aonix, Intermetrics, Greenhill and other Ada > > compiler vendors do? They did nothing to promote Ada. > > What a crock of horse-hockey! > > And no, I'm not going to list 15 years of Ada advocacy efforts on the part > of the vendors. > I will say a few words about this. Ada Core Technologies has, and continues to have, an initiative for promoting Ada. The very fact that GNAT is available free is a substantial achievement. Aonix, though more recently less of an advocated, also has a free compiler and gave away thousands of copies of its early Ada 95 compiler at conferences and elsewhere. During the early years, there was a lot of advocacy. I recall getting excellent support for my own advocacy efforts from Alsys, especially when Lori Heyman was in charge of public relations there. Ben Brosgol traveled all over the world presenting Ada to a wide range of audiences. Let's not forget the efforts of Ralph Crafts. He worked his butt off trying to promote Ada to a larger venue. He finally burned out and left the Ada industry, but his work on the behalf of Ada was second to none. For Ada 83, we had the Meridian Ada compiler, and the Janus Ada compiler, both of which were reasonably priced. Though Janus was probably a slightly better compiler, Meridian took the trouble to provide a good library for writing DOS programs and that made it popular in a lot of university environments. Then there were other organizations, composed mostly of Ada compiler publishers. When Ada 95 came on the scene, a large chunk of money was set aside for publicity and promotion. Sadly, much of it was squandered on silly advertisements and posters that had no chance of convincing anyone. Even so, the ARA did give it a try even with very limited resources. Promotion takes money. In the current world of Ada, there is not much of that available. Some compiler publishers are not earning much money on Ada at present. This is due, in large part, to the move away from Ada toward other languages for some important military projects. Few compiler companies can thrive, at present, by relying solely on its Ada products. Ada suffered some early setbacks because of bad policy decisions on the part of the DoD as well as the compiler publishers. When the DoD insisted that all software be written in a language for which compilers did not yet exist, it set up a plan for failure. That policy was followed with a waiver policy that added to the problem. Overall, the early DoD management of its Ada initiative was pretty bad. The blame for this can be assigned to a fairly high level within the DoD, indeed, within the U.S. Government, where officials failed to understand the value, the importance, of this initiative. The compiler publishers, all of which were staffed by a lot of bright, enthusiastic, and conscientious people, made their own mistakes. Failure to provide a full set of facilities for the popular targeted platforms was one (except for Meridian, cited earlier). Failure to coordinate with each other to develop a set of portable libraries. Setting prices so high, for the really good compilers, that Non-DoD companies could not justify the use of Ada to their own management. Failure to fully grasp the impact of the microcomputer revolution and adapt their compilers, at appropriate pricing, to meet the demand (again Meridian and Janus were the exceptions). Failure to be flexible enough as the microcomputer industry evolved through a variety of human-machine interaction modes. Failure to develop good file management, database management, and other libraries that could attract a larger following. Ada entered the marketplace at a time of marketplace change. The changes were occurring so fast that a language that could not change at the same pace, or where tools and libraries could not keep up with that pace, was bound to be suspect. Finally, just as Ada reached a point where it was the ideal solution for a larger range of environments and applications (free compilers, better tools for windowing environments, good editors, lots of good libraries, etc), it had its support cut from under it by the very organization that needed it most, the DoD. Funding was cut, the AdaIC was disbanded, and the developers rushed to C++ in droves. It was a classic case where the DoD grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. Ada had become one of the most effective development tools available, in my view, far superior to the C++ of the time, and the DoD management simply abandoned it. I continue to encounter DoD officials who seriously believe that the DoD has now banned the use of Ada for future software projects. At present, I know of no high-ranking DoD official who will rebut that view. At present, no one in the DoD, certainly no one in the Pentagon, wants to have his/her name publicly associated with Ada in any way. They look upon it as a failed project. How does anyone counter that view? How do we revive confidence in Ada once it has become a pariah among the very people who will benefit from it? Sadly, these senior officials have washed their hands of anything to do with language selection, and our weapon systems are going to be awash with awful, unmaintainable software, and probably less reliable software written in C++. The deleterious effects of all this C++ code will not manifest itself for a long time, and when it does, it will be too late. Richard Riehle