Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Jim Gurtner]

Is this an Ada put down?

Dan Saks said in a keynote speech at Embedded Systems Conference in
Boston on Tuesday (Sept. 14):

"In embedded programming, learning a less-popular language like Ada or
Eiffel is critical not so much because it is a marketable skill but
because it helps programmers see what is possible with more mainstream
languages like C, C++ or Java." 

Full article at:
http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CKYSLIP2YSM04QSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=47208416

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <fr9kk01tcdivrcr39v69a2db6jobdnl5cr@4ax.com>, Jim Gurtner <jgurtner@mindspring.com> writes:
> Is this an Ada put down?

I don't particularly care what the speaker intended,
but if the listeners actually take the advice and
learn Ada some will choose to stay with it.

> Dan Saks said in a keynote speech at Embedded Systems Conference in
> Boston on Tuesday (Sept. 14):
> 
> "In embedded programming, learning a less-popular language like Ada or
> Eiffel is critical not so much because it is a marketable skill but
> because it helps programmers see what is possible with more mainstream
> languages like C, C++ or Java." 

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Jim Gurtner]

I agree with you, Larry.  I know C/C++ and am currently teaching
myself Ada.  I am finding it surprisingly easy to get my programming
excercises working.  The GNAT compiler error messages are very clear
and it makes it easy to debug.

Jim Gurtner
jgurtner@mindsping.com

On 16 Sep 2004 19:28:25 -0500, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
wrote:

>In article <fr9kk01tcdivrcr39v69a2db6jobdnl5cr@4ax.com>, Jim Gurtner <jgurtner@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Is this an Ada put down?
>
>I don't particularly care what the speaker intended,
>but if the listeners actually take the advice and
>learn Ada some will choose to stay with it.
>
>> Dan Saks said in a keynote speech at Embedded Systems Conference in
>> Boston on Tuesday (Sept. 14):
>> 
>> "In embedded programming, learning a less-popular language like Ada or
>> Eiffel is critical not so much because it is a marketable skill but
>> because it helps programmers see what is possible with more mainstream
>> languages like C, C++ or Java." 

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Steve]

I went to a seminar at the embedded systems conference in 95 and listened to
Dan Saks speak.  He was talking about the difference between object oriented
programming and structured programming.

He explained that with structured programming all variables and functions
are global and with object oriented programming functions and variables had
a well defined scope.

What a crock!

My conclusion: take anything you hear from Dan Saks with a grain of salt.

Steve
(The Duck)

"Jim Gurtner" <jgurtner@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fr9kk01tcdivrcr39v69a2db6jobdnl5cr@4ax.com...
> Is this an Ada put down?
>
> Dan Saks said in a keynote speech at Embedded Systems Conference in
> Boston on Tuesday (Sept. 14):
>
> "In embedded programming, learning a less-popular language like Ada or
> Eiffel is critical not so much because it is a marketable skill but
> because it helps programmers see what is possible with more mainstream
> languages like C, C++ or Java."
>
> Full article at:
>
http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CKYSLIP2YSM04QSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=47208416
>

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <YHr2d.62810$D%.19909@attbi_s51>, "Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> writes:
> I went to a seminar at the embedded systems conference in 95 and listened to
> Dan Saks speak.  He was talking about the difference between object oriented
> programming and structured programming.
> 
> He explained that with structured programming all variables and functions
> are global and with object oriented programming functions and variables had
> a well defined scope.

If your only tool is a cammer, every problem looks like a cail.

> What a crock!
> 
> My conclusion: take anything you hear from Dan Saks with a grain of salt.

My presumption is that the audience will not be relying upon him
for Ada instruction.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Christoph Karl Walter Grein]

> If your only tool is a cammer, every problem looks like a cail.

No, every problem looks like a chumb ;-)
_________________________________________________________
Mit WEB.DE FreePhone? mit hochster Qualitat ab 0 Ct./Min.
weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Cesar Rabak]

Larry Kilgallen escreveu:
> In article <fr9kk01tcdivrcr39v69a2db6jobdnl5cr@4ax.com>, Jim Gurtner <jgurtner@mindspring.com> writes:
> 
>>Is this an Ada put down?
> 
> 
> I don't particularly care what the speaker intended,
> but if the listeners actually take the advice and
> learn Ada some will choose to stay with it.
> 
If management allow them to use it in the actual project!

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Christopher Browne]

In the last exciting episode, Jim Gurtner <jgurtner@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Is this an Ada put down?
>
> Dan Saks said in a keynote speech at Embedded Systems Conference in
> Boston on Tuesday (Sept. 14):
>
> "In embedded programming, learning a less-popular language like Ada or
> Eiffel is critical not so much because it is a marketable skill but
> because it helps programmers see what is possible with more mainstream
> languages like C, C++ or Java." 

This is much the same as when Eric Raymond (the guy that wrote the
essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") wrote:

"Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you
will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a
better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never
actually use Lisp itself a lot."

- Eric Raymond, "How to Become a Hacker"

Understanding the additional abstractions is useful whether you use
them directly or not because they allow you to perceive additional
ways of viewing the way computers do things.

- Knowing enough about APL to know that there's some merit to having
  vector functions or to having a "reduce" abstraction will lead to 
  building more powerful systems

- Understanding relational algebra leads to looking at data access in
  a more declarative/applicative manner, rather than just the "network
  model" (which is where OO tends to point people)

- Knowing Ada exception handling will lead to looking for ways to
  apply it, even if only partially, in other languages.

- Likewise, understanding rendezvous may help in designing
  applications, whether you get to use it or not.

- The disciplines of _describing_ strong typing of parameters,
  as in Eiffel's "Design by Contract," are useful whether enforced
  by the langage or not.
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #133.  "If I find my beautiful consort with
access to  my fortress has been  associating with the  hero, I'll have
her executed.  It's regrettable,  but new consorts  are easier  to get
than new fortresses  and maybe the next one will  pay attention at the
orientation meeting." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[stephane richard]

"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. 
Sure, back then, anyone that would have given any language away would have 
made it popular (BASIC comes to mind ;-).

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.

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.

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.  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.

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 :-).

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <0hL2d.762$QB1.501@trndny02>, "stephane richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes:
> "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:414B6E62.9070402@acm.org...

>> If management allow them to use it in the actual project!

> 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.

Because there are mixed messages from programmers.

We can deride some programmers for favoring only that with which
they are familiar, but management cannot tell the motivations from
the facts.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Ed Falis]

But still, Eric Raymond's observations about software development, and  
particularly about programming languages, are naive at best.

- Ed

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Christopher Browne]

Quoth "Ed Falis" <falis@verizon.net>:
> But still, Eric Raymond's observations about software development,
> and particularly about programming languages, are naive at best.

That actually came up at work today; the observation was made that the
main area where he has said things that people have listened to has
related to his still flimsier arguments based in economic "theory."
(I leave it in "quotes" because what he'd regard as "economic theory"
likely has little to do with what economists would regard as such...)
-- 
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
"640K ought to be enough for anybody" -- Bill Gates - 1981

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Simon Wright]

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:

> - Understanding relational algebra leads to looking at data access in
>   a more declarative/applicative manner, rather than just the "network
>   model" (which is where OO tends to point people)

I can recommend XSLT programming for the same reasons!

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Cesar Rabak]

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!

 > 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.

 > 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.

 >
 > 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.

 >
 > 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.

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[stephane richard]

"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

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Cesar Rabak]

stephane richard escreveu:
 > "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
[snipped]

 >>
 >> 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. ;-).

Yes. It is a recurrent theme on consulting jobs the very immature
estimating capability of most organizations.

 > 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?

Boy, I wish we could have hard and statiscally clean data on this point!
Unfortunately, when you go after the facts you notice the code written
in Ada and that performed well in this aspect had also sound
engineering, goood test plans so difficult to cling to Ada technology
only. . .

 >
 >
 >>> 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.

I agree to your comment on SW engineering. I wish I could propose the
packages and components people has to integrate would have better
quality if written in Ada, and _being_ _heard_!

 > 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.

Again. Do you think it is possible to gather some data to prove them
wrong? Other than that, we are thought as bringing just more 'anedoctal
evidence'. . .

 >
 >
 >>> 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?

I may try :-) I feel there are too many factors. Some of them already
discussed recently in this NG and with some fine comments. In order I
can bring some light to the discussion, I will discuss only 'general' or
'business' oriented IT, taking out of discussion the specialized fields
(like defense or medicine).

First of all, we have the problem of legacy and the castle built upon
the sand. To be able to explain this, lets get a simple example:

Some years ago there was in the help of Object Ada a sort of Petzold's
book examples of Windows programming in Ada. Once you're in this
environment, most of the Ada help (for producing more solid code)
becomes less visible while the programmer has to struggle with the
subtleties of the Win32 API.

 From a management perspective the ROI in going Ada is not positive. The
same can be said if we were on the Database binding, etc. See posts on
the GPS 'bugs' and we see it right now on a real project!

Second, academia (the three amigos on UML, for example) abandoned the
use of Ada in favor of C++ bringing a perceived vision of the "way to
go" for less technically oriented people. Now, let me ask you: if you go
to a newstand where fine IT magazines are sold what are the odds a
manager sees CUJ or VisualBasic or perhaps a .Net mag, and what are the
chances Ada is ever mentioned? And to finally blow the wollf dead most
of the 'Research' and 'Advisory' firms when mention Ada send the message
it is a 'niche' language or an 'ageing' technology not to be considered
for new developements. . .


 > Like you I do realize that what you say is indeed true.  But I like
 > to know why things are the way they are.

In a nutshell I would say: because most of the strategic decisions are
not made only in the basis of the merits of the technology, upper
managment on most of organizations may not even have the skills in this
area and the incremental benefits Ada brings to a project are diluted
into the rest of problems IT industry is plaged with (too soft
requirements analysis, featuritis, etc.).

 > And from one professional to another, would you make that same
 > decision, knowing Ada as you do?

I find hard to explain to my peers I have reason, although if I could
manage a project without having to 'negociate' this issue I will prefer
to use Ada and invest in the proper ammount of training of the personnel
so they started to think differently and not using it as 'just another'
language.

 > 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?

Because we are tied to a technical echosystem: major players 'help' you
if you go their way. Why we could not avoid SAP created ABAP instead to
use Ada? Or why is it Microsoft swears they have a 'security' mentallity
and cannot ever _think_ of rewriting some critical software is plagued
by buffer overflows?

Even in a non commercial arena, why can't we convince Open Source
enthusiats to write the system software in Ada and start to make a
difference in this realm (my perception of their account on bugs is that
they have a better response time, not intrinsical better designed in
security)?

[snipped]

 >
 > 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.

I'll consider this a call to work on our community! And I humbly add *it
is a must* we get able to do so in order to show our technology really
helps to do such things!

On closing, I think we could try to make better marketing of the
strenghts of Ada going to the place where good wrtitten software counts 
more: infrastructure and components.

Strategically I think we should think to reduce the efforts on the 
'wrapper' (the more known name for our bindings) libraries and go for 
writting some fine libraries for others which stand for their robustness 
and security records.

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[stephane richard]

"Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message 
news:414EE3A0.9080106@acm.org...
> stephane richard escreveu:
> > "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
> [snipped]

> Yes. It is a recurrent theme on consulting jobs the very immature
> estimating capability of most organizations.
>
> > 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?
>
> Boy, I wish we could have hard and statiscally clean data on this point!
> Unfortunately, when you go after the facts you notice the code written
> in Ada and that performed well in this aspect had also sound
> engineering, goood test plans so difficult to cling to Ada technology
> only. . .
>
As do I,  the numbers are there, any project manager for a good majority of 
the project wonder if they made the right choice of technology including 
programming languages.  especially when they see deadlines (both time wise 
and budget wise) not met and the likes.  Too often I've seen this first hand 
in my career, managers going into big meetings and debates about what they 
"should" have done cause they can't deny that something MUST have went 
wrong.

> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> I agree to your comment on SW engineering. I wish I could propose the
> packages and components people has to integrate would have better
> quality if written in Ada, and _being_ _heard_!
>
Well, I'm gonna say something here, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that's 
either experienced this or heard of someone that experienced this.  Back 
when I was in school (thank God windows was still a hated thing back then 
;-).  and since then too, everything I've coded in C/C++ both from a low 
level OS to a full fledged business application (that the manager just 
didn't see any other language as a better choice?).  be it personal projects 
or commercial solutions, after many months after the deadlines, I ended up 
having to rewrite.  Am I a bad coder?  I think not, I've been programming 
for so long, I can't remember anything else :-).  However the "managers" 
went with the "this is THE language" trend and shot themselves in the foot 
so often, you can't even tell there ever was a foot there to begin with.  I 
don't think it's a language issue.  Was Ada the ultimate solution?  I like 
to think so...but what I do know is that C or C++ were NOT the solution at 
all but rather the cause of their problems.

Then came C++ builder (and the ever popular OWL library), and, on the 
competing side, the Microsoft Foundation Class.  Now bugs were generated by 
the IDE instead of the programmer.  Is that a step forward?   Sure C and C++ 
definitaly have their place.   But as "general purpose languages" they still 
got a long way to go.  that's my own personal and professional experience 
with it.  But I'd still use C and/or C++ to create an OS or a compiler or 
very low level coding that other languages can't reach...then again maybe 
I'd be better off doing those in Assembler.

> > 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.
>
> Again. Do you think it is possible to gather some data to prove them
> wrong? Other than that, we are thought as bringing just more 'anedoctal
> evidence'. . .
>
Let me do an investigation on this if I may.  I know, from my own 
experiences that this is what they want or claim but let's see what I can 
find out :-).  I'll be happy to share my results on this :-).

> >
> >
> >>> 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?
>
> I may try :-) I feel there are too many factors. Some of them already
> discussed recently in this NG and with some fine comments. In order I
> can bring some light to the discussion, I will discuss only 'general' or
> 'business' oriented IT, taking out of discussion the specialized fields
> (like defense or medicine).
>
> First of all, we have the problem of legacy and the castle built upon
> the sand. To be able to explain this, lets get a simple example:
>
> Some years ago there was in the help of Object Ada a sort of Petzold's
> book examples of Windows programming in Ada. Once you're in this
> environment, most of the Ada help (for producing more solid code)
> becomes less visible while the programmer has to struggle with the
> subtleties of the Win32 API.
>
The question here is, did people throw the responsabilities of the subleties 
of the API on Microsoft, on Ada, on _____________ <- fill in the blank?

Based on that we can see how much things have evolved.  I used to work in VB 
with a programmer that had no problem blaming all them 3rd party controls 
(ocx) for any possible problems it would have. When in fact, I knew that VB 
was the one to blame.  So is all the background information based on real 
facts or on "protect one's self" facts?

> From a management perspective the ROI in going Ada is not positive. The
> same can be said if we were on the Database binding, etc. See posts on
> the GPS 'bugs' and we see it right now on a real project!
>
I was on the newsgroup back then as my ISP disabled my email from newsgroup 
access and it took them 6 months to figure out that this is what the problem 
was.  can you send me a link to the GPS 'bugs' thread?  I'd love to read on 
that.  One thing I can tell you is in database development, if any tool, no 
matter what language it's built in, can corrupt the database for any reason, 
it wont be used.  I can name many combination of 
language/IDE/library/database that at least used to severely play with the 
security and the integrity of a database.  yes some of those with microsoft 
and they were recognized and in the knowledge base.  I've seen some claims 
that it was fixed, but there's others I've yet to see even an attempt at a 
solution appear.

> Second, academia (the three amigos on UML, for example) abandoned the
> use of Ada in favor of C++ bringing a perceived vision of the "way to
> go" for less technically oriented people. Now, let me ask you: if you go
> to a newstand where fine IT magazines are sold what are the odds a
> manager sees CUJ or VisualBasic or perhaps a .Net mag, and what are the
> chances Ada is ever mentioned? And to finally blow the wollf dead most
> of the 'Research' and 'Advisory' firms when mention Ada send the message
> it is a 'niche' language or an 'ageing' technology not to be considered
> for new developements. . .
>
Well that is true.  But what I really debate here is again the why.  you say 
it right here ""way to
> go" for less technically oriented people" that says everything to me.  One 
> would think that in the software industry, the least a developer should be 
> is a strict minimum of "technical".  Once again, it's those IT magazines 
> and other "self proclaimed industry representatives" that are destroying 
> the very meaning of software engineer and software developer.  But like 
> all magazines the IT magazines (or any other computer magazines for that 
> matter) and like all businesses want to sell their thing and make money. 
> Hence they'll do anything to broaden their scope of potential customers. 
> and if it means destroying the meaning of things that are.  They wont 
> think twice (especially the less popular magazines).

This is like watching movies.  the movie industry produces what the 
potential viewer want to see.  What do you think would happen if for the 
next say 5 years (no more, maybe less) any high tech movie out there was to 
talk about ada or you know if the movie's vision of the future (in 
futuristic movies) weren't really related to the popular things of today? 
what would happen to Ada?  as much as movies and programming aren't related, 
it would be fun to see the kind of influence the movie industry can have on 
the software development industry.

>
> > Like you I do realize that what you say is indeed true.  But I like
> > to know why things are the way they are.
>
> In a nutshell I would say: because most of the strategic decisions are
> not made only in the basis of the merits of the technology, upper
> managment on most of organizations may not even have the skills in this
> area and the incremental benefits Ada brings to a project are diluted
> into the rest of problems IT industry is plaged with (too soft
> requirements analysis, featuritis, etc.).
>
Agreed here 100%.....and again the burden of proving the management's choice 
of technology right or wrong falls back on the developer(s).  And today's 
developer simply gets technical, looses management in a pool of technical 
excuses and the management believes them because they don't have the 
knowledge etc etc....That too I've seen happen quite often.

> > And from one professional to another, would you make that same
> > decision, knowing Ada as you do?
>
> I find hard to explain to my peers I have reason, although if I could
> manage a project without having to 'negociate' this issue I will prefer
> to use Ada and invest in the proper ammount of training of the personnel
> so they started to think differently and not using it as 'just another'
> language.
>
As would I.....wanna talk about aging technology?  do I dare say "Visual 
COBOL" ?  it does exist, why?  I'll never have the knowledge to understand 
that ;-).  Seriously, how old is C++ better yet, how old is C?  and well are 
they being used today?  I don't buy the agin technology excuse from no one. 
:-).....

> Because we are tied to a technical echosystem: major players 'help' you
> if you go their way. Why we could not avoid SAP created ABAP instead to
> use Ada? Or why is it Microsoft swears they have a 'security' mentallity
> and cannot ever _think_ of rewriting some critical software is plagued
> by buffer overflows?
>
> Even in a non commercial arena, why can't we convince Open Source
> enthusiats to write the system software in Ada and start to make a
> difference in this realm (my perception of their account on bugs is that
> they have a better response time, not intrinsical better designed in
> security)?
>
Yes once again I have no choice but to agree, on at least 3 contracts I've 
had, I was selected because of the sheer speed of debugging I could execute 
in a day.  And I asked them that directly "you want to hire me because I fix 
bugs faster?" and their answers was a categoric "YES!".  I'm sure that 
hasn't changed much today. The problem is the industry is still busy trying 
to find new old things for computers to do.  Hence do more things that 
humans quite simply just don't want to do anymore.  We haven't even begun to 
create with the computer.  They think they got a pot of gold in source code 
(and with the price they probably paid for them, it's probably financially 
worth a pot of gold ;-).  so of course they'll never say to the outside 
world (well we really messed up on our choice).


> [snipped]
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'll consider this a call to work on our community! And I humbly add *it
> is a must* we get able to do so in order to show our technology really
> helps to do such things!
>
> On closing, I think we could try to make better marketing of the
> strenghts of Ada going to the place where good wrtitten software counts 
> more: infrastructure and components.

Agreed. That sounds like very sound advice to me :-).
>
> Strategically I think we should think to reduce the efforts on the 
> 'wrapper' (the more known name for our bindings) libraries and go for 
> writting some fine libraries for others which stand for their robustness 
> and security records.
>
Agreed, once again :-).

> --
> Cesar Rabak
>
> 

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Björn Persson]

stephane richard wrote:

> I was on the newsgroup back then as my ISP disabled my email from newsgroup 
> access and it took them 6 months to figure out that this is what the problem 
> was.  can you send me a link to the GPS 'bugs' thread?  I'd love to read on 
> that.

I think Cesar may have meant the thread called "Latest GNAT version", 
started 2004-08-30 by John Zouck, and in particular the post by Pascal 
Obry with message-ID <ubrgrkxed.fsf@act-europe.fr>.

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Cesar Rabak]

Bj�rn Persson escreveu:
> stephane richard wrote:
> 
>> I was on the newsgroup back then as my ISP disabled my email from 
>> newsgroup access and it took them 6 months to figure out that this is 
>> what the problem was.  can you send me a link to the GPS 'bugs' 
>> thread?  I'd love to read on that.
> 
> 
> I think Cesar may have meant the thread called "Latest GNAT version", 
> started 2004-08-30 by John Zouck, and in particular the post by Pascal 
> Obry with message-ID <ubrgrkxed.fsf@act-europe.fr>.
> 

Yes Bj�rn! Thanks for finding it for us!

Regards,

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Benjamin Ketcham]

Cesar Rabak <crabak@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Even in a non commercial arena, why can't we convince Open Source
> enthusiats to write the system software in Ada and start to make a
> difference in this realm (my perception of their account on bugs is that
> they have a better response time, not intrinsical better designed in
> security)?

Well, this is a very good point.  I would suggest that a way to
make Ada much more popular, would be to recode the Linux kernel
in Ada.  Perhaps a group of Ada enthusiasts could maintain a port
to Ada of the latest "stable" kernel.  My guess is that this would
gain interest from security- and reliability-minded markets, and
thus would, in turn, increase the demand for Ada programmers to
maintain the "high-reliability Ada version of Linux".

How long does someone who actually knows Ada (not me) think it
would take to translate the kernel to Ada?  Any snags or issues
other than just some time & effort?  Any reason it couldn't be
done?  Or *shouldn't*?  Or has it been tried?  Would the
performance just be too embarrassing in comparison to C?  Is the
Linux kernel thought to already be so secure & bug-free that no
benefits would accrue?

--Benjamin

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[stephane richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 839 bytes --]

excuse my ignorance...how do I get to this?  I see it...but I'm not sure how 
to get to it...clicking on it brings me to a send mail dialog.




"Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message 
news:414F781E.7000202@acm.org...
> Bj�rn Persson escreveu:
>> stephane richard wrote:
>>
>>> I was on the newsgroup back then as my ISP disabled my email from 
>>> newsgroup access and it took them 6 months to figure out that this is 
>>> what the problem was.  can you send me a link to the GPS 'bugs' thread? 
>>> I'd love to read on that.
>>
>>
>> I think Cesar may have meant the thread called "Latest GNAT version", 
>> started 2004-08-30 by John Zouck, and in particular the post by Pascal 
>> Obry with message-ID <ubrgrkxed.fsf@act-europe.fr>.
>>
>
> Yes Bj�rn! Thanks for finding it for us!
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Cesar Rabak
> 

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Björn Persson]

stephane richard wrote:

> excuse my ignorance...how do I get to this?  I see it...but I'm not sure how 
> to get to it...clicking on it brings me to a send mail dialog.

I didn't make a link. It's your Outlook Express that assumes that 
everything that looks like an email address is an email address. (Not 
that there's anything wrong with that.) It's probably possible to make a 
URI for a Usenet message, but I don't know how so I provided enough 
details that you should be able to find it. If the thread has expired 
from your server you could search for it in Google Groups.

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Benjamin Ketcham wrote:
> Cesar Rabak <crabak@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>>Even in a non commercial arena, why can't we convince Open Source
>>enthusiats to write the system software in Ada and start to make a
>>difference in this realm (my perception of their account on bugs is that
>>they have a better response time, not intrinsical better designed in
>>security)?
> 
> Well, this is a very good point.  I would suggest that a way to
> make Ada much more popular, would be to recode the Linux kernel
> in Ada.  

I think your heart is in the right place, but I would suggest
that an Ada clone of Linux makes it a wanna-be. In some senses
it is probably true that Linux was a UNIX-wannabe, though Linus
admitted that it was easier to use existing standards (POSIX
for example) than to develop new one(s).

I would suggest that an Ada O/S with the same principles learned
from UNIX et al. would be a good thing, but let's not do
a "UNIX version in Ada" or a "Linux version in Ada".

Radically new O/S research is welcomed also but the danger
there is that something radically different is not likely to get off
the ground. So I would suggest that a practical Ada O/S with
"normal features" could be developed without the need to
follow a standard.

Maybe this too is asking too much because it requires
the development of both a new O/S and a new "standard"
(and obviously a big porting headache for X11 etc).  Yet
it would be real nice to have a natural Ada API base
on which C programs had to adapt. ;_)

> How long does someone who actually knows Ada (not me) think it
> would take to translate the kernel to Ada?  

I think this process is the wrong way to put something into
Ada. Ada can be made to look like a C program, but I don't
see any benefit to that.

Only by redesign, in Ada terms (not C ones), does such a
project have any useful outcome. For this you toss away
the C code, and design from the requirements.  And what
I am suggesting is that you don't need the Linux kernel
to dictate your requirements.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Martin Krischik]

Bjï¿œrn Persson wrote:

> stephane richard wrote:
> 
>> excuse my ignorance...how do I get to this?  I see it...but I'm not sure
>> how to get to it...clicking on it brings me to a send mail dialog.
> 
> I didn't make a link. It's your Outlook Express that assumes that
> everything that looks like an email address is an email address. (Not
> that there's anything wrong with that.) It's probably possible to make a
> URI for a Usenet message, but I don't know how so I provided enough
> details that you should be able to find it. If the thread has expired
> from your server you could search for it in Google Groups.

actually there are two URI types for usenet:

news:// und nntp:// 

Both with advantages and disadvantages.

With Regards

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Cesar Rabak]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG escreveu:
> Benjamin Ketcham wrote:
> 
>> Cesar Rabak <crabak@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Even in a non commercial arena, why can't we convince Open Source
>>> enthusiats to write the system software in Ada and start to make a
>>> difference in this realm (my perception of their account on bugs is that
>>> they have a better response time, not intrinsical better designed in
>>> security)?
>>
>>
>> Well, this is a very good point.  I would suggest that a way to
>> make Ada much more popular, would be to recode the Linux kernel
>> in Ada.  
> 
> 
> I think your heart is in the right place, but I would suggest
> that an Ada clone of Linux makes it a wanna-be. In some senses
> it is probably true that Linux was a UNIX-wannabe, though Linus
> admitted that it was easier to use existing standards (POSIX
> for example) than to develop new one(s).

I've to agree with this point. The last thing we need a failing attempt 
to get at the market due an unsurmountable amount of work necessary 
before something sees the light of the day.

We can make paralells with Hurd, for example.

> 
> I would suggest that an Ada O/S with the same principles learned
> from UNIX et al. would be a good thing, but let's not do
> a "UNIX version in Ada" or a "Linux version in Ada".

Perhaps if we start small and create a kernel for appliance servers, 
which now have Linux or BSD as OS, and then progress onwards?

> 
> Radically new O/S research is welcomed also but the danger
> there is that something radically different is not likely to get off
> the ground. So I would suggest that a practical Ada O/S with
> "normal features" could be developed without the need to
> follow a standard.

Yes. Again, try to grab some kind of 'market' where still everyone is 
not the incumbent. Displace a 'winning' technology would require lots of 
energy.

> 
> Maybe this too is asking too much because it requires
> the development of both a new O/S and a new "standard"
> (and obviously a big porting headache for X11 etc).  Yet
> it would be real nice to have a natural Ada API base
> on which C programs had to adapt. ;_)

Yes! Besides even taking spite out of the equation ;-) the more an 
environment would be a better fit for Ada, the easier would be to have 
people to come to this language.

> 
>> How long does someone who actually knows Ada (not me) think it
>> would take to translate the kernel to Ada?  
> 
> 
> I think this process is the wrong way to put something into
> Ada. Ada can be made to look like a C program, but I don't
> see any benefit to that.

I cannot second this more.

> 
> Only by redesign, in Ada terms (not C ones), does such a
> project have any useful outcome. For this you toss away
> the C code, and design from the requirements.  And what
> I am suggesting is that you don't need the Linux kernel
> to dictate your requirements.
> 

I date to say we should be a little less entuasistic (or say more 
humble) and try to get a more small piece, like a software like bind or 
another (server) deamon and re-engineer it in Ada and start to quench 
these awful stories of 'vulnerabilities' and 'buffer overflow' problems.

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Jeffrey Carter]

Cesar Rabak wrote:

> Yes. Again, try to grab some kind of 'market' where still everyone is 
> not the incumbent. Displace a 'winning' technology would require lots of 
> energy.

Someone posted here some time ago that an OS or kernel for set-top boxes 
is an open market where a well designed, reliable, secure Ada offering 
could compete. I know nothing about this domain area, but would be 
willing to try to help.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of
thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."
Blazing Saddles
89

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Tom]

Cesar Rabak <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message news:<414EE3A0.9080106@acm.org>...
> stephane richard escreveu:
>  > "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
> [snipped]
> 
> Second, academia (the three amigos on UML, for example) abandoned the
> use of Ada in favor of C++ bringing a perceived vision of the "way to
> go" for less technically oriented people. Now, let me ask you: if you go
> to a newstand where fine IT magazines are sold what are the odds a
> manager sees CUJ or VisualBasic or perhaps a .Net mag, and what are the
> chances Ada is ever mentioned? And to finally blow the wollf dead most
> of the 'Research' and 'Advisory' firms when mention Ada send the message
> it is a 'niche' language or an 'ageing' technology not to be considered
> for new developements. . .
>
Where do you think that they might be getting that idea?  When I was
doing a quick search for information on Ada I put "Ada compilers" in
for the search term on google. I found a fair number of the most
popular web sites were not updated in the last several years. It does
not distill a lot of confidence in a computer language when the so
called enthusiasts can't even keep their web sites up to date.  If
this was not bad enough one of the Windows compiler distributors did
not even mention WindowsXP. The last operating system that they say
works with their compiler is Win95.  Come on, if the enthusiasts can't
stay up to date then what chance is there of convincing someone new to
Ada that it is not 'ageing' technology.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Georg Bauhaus]

Tom <8f27iw6z@canada.com> wrote:

: It does
: not distill a lot of confidence in a computer language when the so
: called enthusiasts can't even keep their web sites up to date.

Well yes, though you would have to explain why you think that all
compiler vendors must always be Ada enthusiasts ;-). Anyway, there are
other operating systems besides Windows XP where a language like
Ada is known better.  For example, would you prefer Windows XP to
VxWorks if your program is going to control a big dangerous power
drill?


-- Georg

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Cesar Rabak]

Jeffrey Carter escreveu:
> Cesar Rabak wrote:
> 
>> Yes. Again, try to grab some kind of 'market' where still everyone is 
>> not the incumbent. Displace a 'winning' technology would require lots 
>> of energy.
> 
> 
> Someone posted here some time ago that an OS or kernel for set-top boxes 
> is an open market where a well designed, reliable, secure Ada offering 
> could compete. I know nothing about this domain area, but would be 
> willing to try to help.
> 

Set-top boxes can profit from a free (Open Source) implementation? Or 
are we talking something more on the line of GNAT (an open plus 
commercial availability)?

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Cesar Rabak]

Tom escreveu:
> Cesar Rabak <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message news:<414EE3A0.9080106@acm.org>...
> 
>>stephane richard escreveu:
>> > "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
>>[snipped]
>>
>>Second, academia (the three amigos on UML, for example) abandoned the
>>use of Ada in favor of C++ bringing a perceived vision of the "way to
>>go" for less technically oriented people. Now, let me ask you: if you go
>>to a newstand where fine IT magazines are sold what are the odds a
>>manager sees CUJ or VisualBasic or perhaps a .Net mag, and what are the
>>chances Ada is ever mentioned? And to finally blow the wollf dead most
>>of the 'Research' and 'Advisory' firms when mention Ada send the message
>>it is a 'niche' language or an 'ageing' technology not to be considered
>>for new developements. . .
>>
> 
> Where do you think that they might be getting that idea? 

For academia, I sincerely don't know, as the 'market forces' are 
somewhat different.

For commercial software, I think the major players are more interested 
in selling their propriatary languages, C++ being IMHO an exception, 
perhaps to fade away with the advent of C#.

> When I was
> doing a quick search for information on Ada I put "Ada compilers" in
> for the search term on google. I found a fair number of the most
> popular web sites were not updated in the last several years. It does

I've done the same research and unfortunately you are right. Also, a 
coleague of mine call my attention on the existance of a sort of 
guideline for writing open source where the language of choice is C (I'm 
looking for it, if I find something more exact, I post a pointer here).

> not distill a lot of confidence in a computer language when the so
> called enthusiasts can't even keep their web sites up to date.  If
> this was not bad enough one of the Windows compiler distributors did
> not even mention WindowsXP. The last operating system that they say
> works with their compiler is Win95.  Come on, if the enthusiasts can't
> stay up to date then what chance is there of convincing someone new to
> Ada that it is not 'ageing' technology.

I see.

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[stephane richard]

"Tom" <8f27iw6z@canada.com> wrote in message 
news:97de285c.0409211234.596b663a@posting.google.com...
> Cesar Rabak <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message 
> news:<414EE3A0.9080106@acm.org>...
>> stephane richard escreveu:
>>  > "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
> Where do you think that they might be getting that idea?  When I was
> doing a quick search for information on Ada I put "Ada compilers" in
> for the search term on google. I found a fair number of the most
> popular web sites were not updated in the last several years. It does
> not distill a lot of confidence in a computer language when the so
> called enthusiasts can't even keep their web sites up to date.  If
> this was not bad enough one of the Windows compiler distributors did
> not even mention WindowsXP. The last operating system that they say
> works with their compiler is Win95.  Come on, if the enthusiasts can't
> stay up to date then what chance is there of convincing someone new to
> Ada that it is not 'ageing' technology.

Well you're definitally right about that.  Those who have made Ada related 
website should take the required time it takes to at least update them. Sure 
there's definitally good excuses, work, lack of time due to other personal 
matters, etc....but indeed, if enthusiasts can't keep their website updated, 
like you said it's hard to convey the right image of Ada.

Back when I created Ada World, this was the main reason why.  I learned the 
language, loved it, but like anyone else, I found older websites only when 
searching for the "latest and greatest".  and sure even if it does work on 
XP (as I can see it does on my Windows XP pc.  I know it works, but like you 
mention again, if it's not written that it does work, people will think it's 
ageing technology.  So I try to keep Ada World as updated as I can.  One 
think that does help is if you look at the ACT website for example, they've 
totally redesigned it from the grounds up.  And revamped every single aspect 
of their website.  So that too is a big plus for the Ada community :-). 
Maybe Ada related companies should make sure to updated their websites with 
recent information like this.  I must say most of them do however :-).  But 
at least then the commercial image of Ada is better.  If you fall on a 
personal website that's not updated, well that has to do with the person 
that made the website, not with Ada per se.  Although it just might help Ada 
itself if they were updated.

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

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Tom]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<ciq8md$1hn$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
> Tom <8f27iw6z@canada.com> wrote:
> 
> : It does
> : not distill a lot of confidence in a computer language when the so
> : called enthusiasts can't even keep their web sites up to date.
> 
> Well yes, though you would have to explain why you think that all
> compiler vendors must always be Ada enthusiasts ;-). Anyway, there are
> other operating systems besides Windows XP where a language like
> Ada is known better.  For example, would you prefer Windows XP to
> VxWorks if your program is going to control a big dangerous power
> drill?
> 
> 
> -- Georg
I will have to take your word on which operating system is better for
control of a big dangerous power drill: I know only Microsoft
operating systems.  One question that I would like an answer for is:
Is Ada less susceptible to computer virii than C++ and Java on the
Windows XP operating system?  Now that is a question that would come
up more often where I work.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Tom a écrit :


> One question that I would like an answer for is:
> Is Ada less susceptible to computer virii than C++ and Java on the
> Windows XP operating system?  Now that is a question that would come
> up more often where I work.

Well, at least there would be no buffer-overflow type attacks...
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Ada and malicious software

[Björn Persson]

Tom wrote:

> One question that I would like an answer for is:
> Is Ada less susceptible to computer virii than C++ and Java on the
> Windows XP operating system?  Now that is a question that would come
> up more often where I work.

If you mean true viruses then I can't see that there would be any 
difference. The choice of programming language doesn't affect a 
program's ability to modify the code of another program. (On the other 
hand, choice of operating system does.)

If you mean malicious code in general, then yes, Ada programs would be 
less subjected to worms, cracking tools and other things that exploit 
security holes. Security holes are often buffer overflows, and as 
Jean-Pierre Rosen said, Ada programs do not have buffer overflows. 
Arithmetic overflows also occur, and Ada protects well against those too.

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Peter Hermann]

stephane richard <stephane.richard@verizon.net> wrote:
> personal website that's not updated, well that has to do with the person 
> that made the website, not with Ada per se.  Although it just might help Ada 
> itself if they were updated.

unfortunately those old pages become counterproductive.

-- 
--Peter Hermann(49)0711-685-3611 fax3758 ica2ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de
--Pfaffenwaldring 27 Raum 114, D-70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen
--http://www.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de/homes/ph/
--Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Anders Wirzenius]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes:

> Benjamin Ketcham wrote:
> 
> > How long does someone who actually knows Ada (not me) think it
> > would take to translate the kernel to Ada?
> 
> I think this process is the wrong way to put something into
> Ada. Ada can be made to look like a C program, but I don't
> see any benefit to that.
> 
> Only by redesign, in Ada terms (not C ones), does such a
> project have any useful outcome. For this you toss away
> the C code, and design from the requirements.  And what
> I am suggesting is that you don't need the Linux kernel
> to dictate your requirements.
> 

I am not a programming lecturer. I got an impression that there are some persons participating in c.l.a who are giving Ada lectures. I want to raise a question about the "useful outcome":

Couldn't a useful outcome be the learning process that comes out of a study where you rewrite a piece of code in Ada, first as a so called line-by-line translation and then as a programming project where you do it from the requirements?
The first mentioned step will certainly raise a bunch of questions about the differences between the [programming language] way and the Ada way. The questions are then answered while doing the second step. The Linux kernel is of course a too big piece for such a project.

Anders

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Benjamin Ketcham]

In article <upt4emx9k.fsf@no.email.thanks.invalid> Anders wrote:
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes:
> 
>> Benjamin Ketcham wrote:
>> 
>> > How long does someone who actually knows Ada (not me) think it
>> > would take to translate the kernel to Ada?
>> 
>> I think this process is the wrong way to put something into
>> Ada. Ada can be made to look like a C program, but I don't
>> see any benefit to that.
>> 
>> Only by redesign, in Ada terms (not C ones), does such a
>> project have any useful outcome. For this you toss away
>> the C code, and design from the requirements.  And what
>> I am suggesting is that you don't need the Linux kernel
>> to dictate your requirements.
>> 
> 
> I am not a programming lecturer. I got an impression that there are some persons participating in c.l.a who are giving Ada lectures. I want to raise a question about the "useful outcome":
> 
> Couldn't a useful outcome be the learning process that comes out of a study where you rewrite a piece of code in Ada, first as a so called line-by-line translation and then as a programming project where you do it from the requirements?
> The first mentioned step will certainly raise a bunch of questions about the differences between the [programming language] way and the Ada way. The questions are then answered while doing the second step.
> 

Exactly, I see this as a benefit, as well.

But there's another benefit I'd expect in addition to the "polemic"
benefit.  That is, I suspect there would be real interest in an Ada Linux
kernel (or other familiar, high-popularity software item: a version
of, or competitor to, Apache would have a very similar effect, IMO),
from many quarters where reliability is perceived to be especially
important.  I'm not as much thinking of the NSA, etc., as businesses
and individuals who would be swayed by the "Reliability" selling point.
E.g., sites that run FreeBSD or some other "off-brand" Unix, because
they are more concerned with (and knowledgeable about) security issues,
than with going with what's popular or what has a lot of drivers.
(Indeed, maybe *BSD would be a better target for a rewrite in Ada than
Linux, given the security focus and the "against the grain, holier than
thou elitism" (no offense intended) of the BSD folks...)

These benefits accrue specifically for a rewrite/translation of an
existing "popular" piece of software.  A new and different "killer app"
that happened to use Ada would be keen, too, but (a) that's not what
I'm talking about, and (b) where is it, anyway?
If there are real benefits to Ada, they should apply even for a "dumb"
rewrite.  If there are only benefits given a ground-up redesign,
without even matching the same "API" as an existing program, then
are these benefits really due to Ada, or just due to generic software
engineering, and the obvious fact that almost anything can be improved
by a redesign?  Wouldn't such things as bounds checking, and the
nailing down of specific behaviour for a host of exceptional conditions
that the C standard just leaves undefined, bring benefits even to such
a "C-centric" program as a Unix kernel?

> The Linux kernel is of course a too big piece for such a project.

Obviously I disagree here.  Or at least I question, why not the
Linux kernel, or something similarly "ambitious".  If one video
driver happens to be written in Ada, nobody except people here will
know or care.  If a whole kernel, or webserver etc., is written in Ada,
it opens up potential exposure to and interest in the language, to
a much bigger world of programmers.  And the opportunity to directly
compare performance and reliability between the Ada and C versions,
seems seductive to me.  Are people afraid of that comparison?

> Anders

PS:  Are you a relation of Lars W.?  Apologies if this is an FAQ of
your life.

--Benjamin

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Marius Amado Alves]

> (Indeed, maybe *BSD would be a better target for a rewrite in Ada than
> Linux...

Yes, and better yet, IMO, would be more advanced systems, distributed 
systems e.g. Plan 9 or Unununium, or real time systems e.g. VxWorks (is 
there a port to stock PCs already?), or a combination, because c'mon, 
the Linux kernel sucks eggs.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Benjamin Ketcham wrote:
> In article <upt4emx9k.fsf@no.email.thanks.invalid> Anders wrote:
>>"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes:
>>>Benjamin Ketcham wrote:
>>>
>>>>How long does someone who actually knows Ada (not me) think it
>>>>would take to translate the kernel to Ada?
>>>
>>>I think this process is the wrong way to put something into
>>>Ada. Ada can be made to look like a C program, but I don't
>>>see any benefit to that.
>>>
>>>Only by redesign, in Ada terms (not C ones), does such a
>>>project have any useful outcome. For this you toss away
>>>the C code, and design from the requirements.  And what
>>>I am suggesting is that you don't need the Linux kernel
>>>to dictate your requirements.
..
>>Couldn't a useful outcome be the learning process that 
 >>comes out of a study where you rewrite a piece of code

A personal learning project is certainly one goal that
a person could aspire to. I am not knocking that.

    - but -

The discussion beforehand suggested to me that the
"useful outcome" was to arrive at a kernel rewritten
in Ada. This implies more than a personal learning
venture. After all, why arrive at a completely
rewritten kernel and keep it to yourself (or keep
a secret).

Therefore, the "useful outcome" seems to imply a
result that can be used by the interested public.

 >>in Ada, first as a so called line-by-line translation
 >>and then as a programming project where you do it from
 >>the requirements?

Most people that have worked with Ada longer than one
semester will tell you that this is bad advice.

This is just my opinion, but I think many others
on this list will second it: if you do a line-by-line
coversion of Linux in Ada, nobody but yourself will
use it. Why?

   1. Linux/UNIX people will hate it because its Ada
   2. Ada people will hate it because it looks and
      smells like C (and will not enjoy the most of
      the Ada benefits).

Will Lisp people embrace it? I doubt it ;-)

The bottom line is why do the job twice?

>>The first mentioned step will certainly raise a bunch 
 >>of questions about the differences between the
 >>[programming language] way and the Ada way. The
 >>questions are then answered while doing the second step.

Designing something from scratch will definitely raise
enough questions of its own. You don't need a line-by
line conversion to raise the right questions.

Where I see the existing kernel providing value is in
answering questions like:

  - How'd they do that? On Intel? On PA-RISC? MIPS?
  - What design trade-offs did they make on this point?
  - How well do those trade-offs work in practice?
  - VM handling (Linux/*BSD/etc.)

By designing from requirements, you are not stuck
re-implementing things the same "as they did". You
can pick and choose from all available sources, not
just one.

> But there's another benefit I'd expect in addition to the "polemic"
> benefit.  That is, I suspect there would be real interest in an Ada Linux
> kernel (or other familiar, high-popularity software item: a version
> of, or competitor to, Apache would have a very similar effect, IMO),

I didn't rule out an Ada POSIX-like platform, which is what
you seem to be implying. If there is enough enthusiasm
for that I welcome it - bring it on. OTOH, there is no
reason to not look at the lessons learned from UNIX, and
design something newer (this move is bolder, but may
provide some chance of appeal).

> from many quarters where reliability is perceived to be especially
> important.  

Definitely, but Ada that in C terms won't provide those
benefits.

> If there are real benefits to Ada, they should apply even for a "dumb"
> rewrite.  

I don't think many will agree with this. There may in fact
be more hinderances than advantages.

> If there are only benefits given a ground-up redesign,
> without even matching the same "API" as an existing program, then
> are these benefits really due to Ada, or just due to generic software
> engineering, and the obvious fact that almost anything can be improved
> by a redesign? 

Let's try this another way. You live in a house, apartment or hut,
right? You win the lottery and you get the chance now to
rebuild. Would you build exactly the same house, but with
materials from a different vendor? I don't think so.

You intimately know all of the faults and weaknesses of your
current home. Given the change, you would eliminate them
with a redesign rather than build them all again. If you
had low water pressure before, you'll take steps like using
larger pipes the next time around.

Chances are your new home will look completely different too.
Who wants to rebuild something that looks the same as the
40 year old styled house you lived in before?

Who wants to use the new O/S in exactly the same way they
were used 15 years ago?

I see many reasons to put the same effort into new design
than mimic existing ones.

The most important thing however is to learn from other
works and projects. This requires research (experience
also helps). The status quo is not the answer for new
development unless it has been generally agreed that
the technology has reached perfection in design, but
is lacking in implementation. I don't think we have
that yet.

>>The Linux kernel is of course a too big piece for such a project.
> 
> Obviously I disagree here.  

I agree with both of you on this one ;-)

It will be too big for some people, and not for others. I don't
think I have the energy or the time to consider such a project,
though there is much internal enthusiasm in my mind for it.

However, with the right mix and teamwork, it is possible for
something to be achieved. The biggest challenge as I see it
is that you have to draw from a smaller community of
Ada developers, unless you can enlist and experience others
in Ada95 (that can't happen overnight).

> know or care.  If a whole kernel, or webserver etc., is written in Ada,
> it opens up potential exposure to and interest in the language, to
> a much bigger world of programmers.  And the opportunity to directly
> compare performance and reliability between the Ada and C versions,
> seems seductive to me.  Are people afraid of that comparison?
> 
>>Anders

Projects like AWS and others are doing their part in this
direction.

For an Ada O/S, I would suggest starting with an existing
microkernel, and build on top of that. Once you achieve some
level of critical-mass, you can then start replacing things
underneath the hood as time goes on. I believe there are
a number of sources available for existing microkernels, in
varying levels of maturity.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Ada and malicious software

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Bj�rn Persson wrote:

> Tom wrote:
> 
>> One question that I would like an answer for is:
>> Is Ada less susceptible to computer virii than C++ and Java on the
>> Windows XP operating system?  Now that is a question that would come
>> up more often where I work.
...
> Jean-Pierre Rosen said, Ada programs do not have buffer overflows. 
> Arithmetic overflows also occur, and Ada protects well against those too.

That should probably be tempered with "not as susceptable" to buffer
overflows. If there was poor design and/or testing, then a production
mode program that is compiled with the checks "off", is still
vulnerable, although admitedly, much less likely.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Pascal Obry]

> > know or care.  If a whole kernel, or webserver etc., is written in Ada,
> > it opens up potential exposure to and interest in the language, to
> > a much bigger world of programmers.  And the opportunity to directly
> > compare performance and reliability between the Ada and C versions,
> > seems seductive to me.  Are people afraid of that comparison?
> >
> >>Anders
> 
> Projects like AWS and others are doing their part in this
> direction.

And I can tell you that I'm not afraid of that comparison at this point :)

<plug>
As AWS has matured a lot in recent versions, it is quite stable and if you
compare the speed of the templates or SOAP engine with some equivalent in the
Apache/Java world you'll see that it is quite fast ;)
</plug>

Pascal.


-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Jeffrey Carter]

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:

> Tom a �crit :
> 
>> One question that I would like an answer for is:
>> Is Ada less susceptible to computer virii than C++ and Java on the
>> Windows XP operating system?  Now that is a question that would come
>> up more often where I work.
> 
> Well, at least there would be no buffer-overflow type attacks...

And no silently overflowing integer attacks.

www.AdaIC.com and archive.AdaIC.com run on a server with the web server 
software written in Ada. According to Randy B, everything that goes 
around on the internet has attacked the server, but nothing has 
succeeded in over 3 years.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"People called Romanes, they go the house?"
Monty Python's Life of Brian
79

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Simon Wright]

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:

> > (Indeed, maybe *BSD would be a better target for a rewrite in Ada than
> > Linux...
> 
> Yes, and better yet, IMO, would be more advanced systems,
> distributed systems e.g. Plan 9 or Unununium, or real time systems
> e.g. VxWorks (is there a port to stock PCs already?), or a
> combination, because c'mon, the Linux kernel sucks eggs.

VxWorks has its place, sure, and if you were developing eg a set-top
box it might be the right thing. Even there people are using embedded
Linux for preference.

Pretty sure you can get VxWorks off the shelf for stock PCs (though of
course your chance of finding a driver for the latest USB-based ADSL
modem is likely to be a lot slimmer than if you used Linux; for a
start, what USB-based ADSL modem vendor is going to consider that
platform?)

Not sure whether sucking eggs is (in your view) good or bad?

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Marius Amado Alves]

>>Yes, and better yet, IMO, would be more advanced systems,
>>distributed systems e.g. Plan 9 or Unununium, or real time systems
>>e.g. VxWorks (is there a port to stock PCs already?), or a
>>combination, because c'mon, the Linux kernel sucks eggs.
> 
> VxWorks has its place, sure, and if you were developing eg a set-top
> box it might be the right thing. Even there people are using embedded
> Linux for preference.

Doesn't a set-top require real time? RTLinux?

> Pretty sure you can get VxWorks off the shelf for stock PCs...

Cool, maybe I'll try some day. I'm pretty fed up with Windows and Linux.

> Not sure whether sucking eggs is (in your view) good or bad?

Bad. No real time. Not distributed. Monolithic. (Sorry I though sucking 
eggs was universally bad :-)

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Björn Persson]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> the Linux kernel sucks eggs.

Ah, so that's why there are so many shells lying around!

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Björn Persson]

Jeffrey Carter wrote:

> www.AdaIC.com and archive.AdaIC.com run on a server with the web server 
> software written in Ada. According to Randy B, everything that goes 
> around on the internet has attacked the server, but nothing has 
> succeeded in over 3 years.

Well, it's hardly surprising that a worm written for a certain 
vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Information Server can't hurt a 
totally different server.

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Ada and malicious software

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG a écrit :

> That should probably be tempered with "not as susceptable" to buffer
> overflows. If there was poor design and/or testing, then a production
> mode program that is compiled with the checks "off", is still
> vulnerable, although admitedly, much less likely.

Of course. You can write badly in Ada. But the difference is, you have 
to ask for it!

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Anders Wirzenius]

Benjamin Ketcham <bketcham@drizzle.com> writes:

> In article <upt4emx9k.fsf@no.email.thanks.invalid> Anders wrote:

> > 
> > I am not a programming lecturer. I got an impression that there are some persons participating in c.l.a who are giving Ada lectures. I want to raise a question about the "useful outcome":
> > 
> > Couldn't a useful outcome be the learning process that comes out of a study where you rewrite a piece of code in Ada, first as a so called line-by-line translation and then as a programming project where you do it from the requirements?
> > The first mentioned step will certainly raise a bunch of questions about the differences between the [programming language] way and the Ada way. The questions are then answered while doing the second step.
> > 
> 
> Exactly, I see this as a benefit, as well.
> 
> But there's another benefit I'd expect in addition to the "polemic"
> benefit.  That is, I suspect there would be real interest in an Ada Linux
> kernel (or other familiar, high-popularity software item: a version
> of, or competitor to, Apache would have a very similar effect, IMO),
> from many quarters where reliability is perceived to be especially
> important.  I'm not as much thinking of the NSA, etc., as businesses
> and individuals who would be swayed by the "Reliability" selling point.
> E.g., sites that run FreeBSD or some other "off-brand" Unix, because
> they are more concerned with (and knowledgeable about) security issues,
> than with going with what's popular or what has a lot of drivers.
> (Indeed, maybe *BSD would be a better target for a rewrite in Ada than
> Linux, given the security focus and the "against the grain, holier than
> thou elitism" (no offense intended) of the BSD folks...)
> 
> These benefits accrue specifically for a rewrite/translation of an
> existing "popular" piece of software.  A new and different "killer app"
> that happened to use Ada would be keen, too, but (a) that's not what
> I'm talking about, and (b) where is it, anyway?
> If there are real benefits to Ada, they should apply even for a "dumb"
> rewrite.  If there are only benefits given a ground-up redesign,
> without even matching the same "API" as an existing program, then
> are these benefits really due to Ada, or just due to generic software
> engineering, and the obvious fact that almost anything can be improved
> by a redesign?  Wouldn't such things as bounds checking, and the
> nailing down of specific behaviour for a host of exceptional conditions
> that the C standard just leaves undefined, bring benefits even to such
> a "C-centric" program as a Unix kernel?
> 
> > The Linux kernel is of course a too big piece for such a project.
> 
> Obviously I disagree here.  Or at least I question, why not the
> Linux kernel, or something similarly "ambitious".  If one video
> driver happens to be written in Ada, nobody except people here will
> know or care.  If a whole kernel, or webserver etc., is written in Ada,
> it opens up potential exposure to and interest in the language, to
> a much bigger world of programmers.  And the opportunity to directly
> compare performance and reliability between the Ada and C versions,
> seems seductive to me.  Are people afraid of that comparison?
> 
> > Anders

With "project" I meant a classroom project, a student assignment.

Ok, why not the kernel as a student project. You need a bunch of
students and an expert on the OS requirements.

> 
> PS:  Are you a relation of Lars W.?  Apologies if this is an FAQ of
> your life.
> 
> --Benjamin

Uncle.

Anders

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Simon Wright]

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:

> > Not sure whether sucking eggs is (in your view) good or bad?
> 
> Bad. No real time. Not distributed. Monolithic. (Sorry I though
> sucking eggs was universally bad :-)

The only English idiom I know of is "teaching your grandmother to suck
eggs" (actually I think this may be a translation of a Roman idiom):
telling someone how do do something they know perfectly well how to do
already, probably better than you do. I suppose grandmothers were
short in the tooth department.

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Randy Brukardt]

"Tom" <8f27iw6z@canada.com> wrote in message
...
> Where do you think that they might be getting that idea?  When I was
> doing a quick search for information on Ada I put "Ada compilers" in
> for the search term on google. I found a fair number of the most
> popular web sites were not updated in the last several years. It does
> not distill a lot of confidence in a computer language when the so
> called enthusiasts can't even keep their web sites up to date.  If
> this was not bad enough one of the Windows compiler distributors did
> not even mention WindowsXP. The last operating system that they say
> works with their compiler is Win95.  Come on, if the enthusiasts can't
> stay up to date then what chance is there of convincing someone new to
> Ada that it is not 'ageing' technology.

It's unfortunate that we've gotten to a point where website "churn" is more
important than the information that they contain. Most information on Ada
*hasn't* changed much since the completion of Ada 95, so there is no need to
change it. But that doesn't make what it says any less relevant.

I know that there are a number of marketing "fluff" pages on our site
(www.rrsoftware.com) that we haven't updated in years -- nothing on them has
needed change. The reasons for using Ada haven't changed; what benefits our
products give haven't changed; our company history hasn't changed -- why
change these pages? Just to keep some web designers employed? I'd rather
spend the effort on the products.

I know that our site contains pages describing our Ada 83 compilers. These
haven't been updated since 1994, and are of course obsolete technology. But
a few people still want them, and it costs us nothing to keep them in the
catalog. We don't bother to update those pages, for obvious reasons, and
it's fairly likely that someone would find "Windows 95" references there.

The full name of our flagship Ada 95 product is "Janus/Ada 95 Professional
for Microsoft Windows 95/NT", which is unfortunate these days. That name
came about because of a - ahem - correspondence with Microsoft's attorneys.
Essentially, we're not allowed to use a better name (that is, leaving off
the OS designators), and listing all of the options is just too unwieldy
"Janus/Ada 95 Professional for Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/2003".
In any case, it would be a bad idea to change the name until there is a new
release, so we're going to have to live with it for a while.

I'm not quite sure why this suddenly is in issue (this is the second time in
two days that someone has mentioned this); the name has been rather obsolete
for more than 5 years (since Windows 98 and Windows 2000 came out), and no
one has complained. Sigh.

                      Randy.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Randy Brukardt]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1944 bytes --]

"Bj�rn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil> wrote in message
news:eIn4d.3914$d5.30556@newsb.telia.net...
Jeffrey Carter wrote:

>> www.AdaIC.com and archive.AdaIC.com run on a server with the web server
>> software written in Ada. According to Randy B, everything that goes
>> around on the internet has attacked the server, but nothing has
>> succeeded in over 3 years.

>Well, it's hardly surprising that a worm written for a certain
>vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Information Server can't hurt a
>totally different server.

True enough, but that's part of the point. Servers like IIS and Apache try
to be all things to all people by supporting various plugins and dynamic
configurations. These same features are often hijacked for malicious uses.
By doing the configuration at compile-time, and by avoiding support for
plugins and other dangerous options, the server is necessarily much more
secure. For instance, it isn't possible to cause the server to run a shell,
because there is no code in the server that can run any other program. Thus,
it is simply impossible to hijack it that way.

Of course, that's not specific to Ada. What has helped about Ada is that
errors can be trapped, logged, and then the task can continue to operate.
That's kept the server running even when it has had fairly significant bugs
(especially in handling malicious input). Those bugs could very well have
turned into a vulnerability in another programming language, but Ada's
checks caught the problems and raised exceptions before any real damage
could occur.

Of course, Ada is no silver bullet here. It's still necessary to pay close
attention to things like file traversal errors, and its certainly possible
that the server contains some sort of vulnerability. I would never say it
was impossible to crack, because that only encourages people to try (ask
Oracle about their vulnerability-free database...).

                          Randy.

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Benjamin Ketcham]

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>>>Yes, and better yet, IMO, would be more advanced systems,
>>>distributed systems e.g. Plan 9 or Unununium, or real time systems
>>>e.g. VxWorks (is there a port to stock PCs already?), or a
>>>combination, because c'mon, the Linux kernel sucks eggs.

A "more advanced" system would only be of interest in *this* context,
if it is widely used (or has the realistic potential to become
widely used).

>> VxWorks has its place, sure, and if you were developing eg a set-top
>> box it might be the right thing. Even there people are using embedded
>> Linux for preference.
> 
> Doesn't a set-top require real time? RTLinux?
> 
>> Pretty sure you can get VxWorks off the shelf for stock PCs...
> 
> Cool, maybe I'll try some day. I'm pretty fed up with Windows and Linux.
> 
>> Not sure whether sucking eggs is (in your view) good or bad?
> 
> Bad. No real time. Not distributed. Monolithic. (Sorry I though sucking 
> eggs was universally bad :-)

I think "monolithic" is debatable, in terms of being a disadvantage.
Linus and others have made reasonable-sounding arguments for the
benefits of a monolithic design.  It is certainly a considered choice.
Witness the Windows NT kernel: started out at least somewhat modular,
but then they had to fold performance-crucial aspects (such as
graphics) back into a monolithic kernel.

Distributed: what about Beowulf?

Real time: RTLinux, etc..

Again, my point is not to argue that Linux is some kind of great
OS without any flaws.  Its greatest benefits IMO are that it's
free, and that it works *well enough*: i.e., a heck of a lot better
than Windows.  If something comes along that works a heck of a lot
better than Linux, then that will be of interest.

--Benjamin

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[CBFalconer]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> The full name of our flagship Ada 95 product is "Janus/Ada 95
> Professional for Microsoft Windows 95/NT", which is unfortunate
> these days. That name came about because of a - ahem -
> correspondence with Microsoft's attorneys. Essentially, we're
> not allowed to use a better name (that is, leaving off the OS
> designators), and listing all of the options is just too
... snip ...

I would like to hear more about this.  What possible justification
can MS have for this?

-- 
 "It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing
  the course"                        - John Kerry, 2004-09-20
 "Ask any boat owner the eventual result of continuing the
  present course indefinitely"    - C.B. Falconer, 2004-09-20

Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Tom]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<SpmdncOlcJjV1M7cRVn-iA@megapath.net>...
> "Tom" <8f27iw6z@canada.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > Where do you think that they might be getting that idea?  When I was
> > doing a quick search for information on Ada I put "Ada compilers" in
> > for the search term on google. I found a fair number of the most
> > popular web sites were not updated in the last several years. It does
> > not distill a lot of confidence in a computer language when the so
> > called enthusiasts can't even keep their web sites up to date.  If
> > this was not bad enough one of the Windows compiler distributors did
> > not even mention WindowsXP. The last operating system that they say
> > works with their compiler is Win95.  Come on, if the enthusiasts can't
> > stay up to date then what chance is there of convincing someone new to
> > Ada that it is not 'ageing' technology.
> 
> It's unfortunate that we've gotten to a point where website "churn" is more
> important than the information that they contain. Most information on Ada
> *hasn't* changed much since the completion of Ada 95, so there is no need to
> change it. But that doesn't make what it says any less relevant.
> 
> I know that there are a number of marketing "fluff" pages on our site
> (www.rrsoftware.com) that we haven't updated in years -- nothing on them has
> needed change. The reasons for using Ada haven't changed; what benefits our
> products give haven't changed; our company history hasn't changed -- why
> change these pages? Just to keep some web designers employed? I'd rather
> spend the effort on the products.

How do I know that you are creating new products if you don't tell me?
Your company may be working on the next big revolution in Ada
programming but if your company doesn't advertise what it is doing I
will ever know.
 
> I know that our site contains pages describing our Ada 83 compilers. These
> haven't been updated since 1994, and are of course obsolete technology. But
> a few people still want them, and it costs us nothing to keep them in the
> catalog. We don't bother to update those pages, for obvious reasons, and
> it's fairly likely that someone would find "Windows 95" references there.
> 
> The full name of our flagship Ada 95 product is "Janus/Ada 95 Professional
> for Microsoft Windows 95/NT", which is unfortunate these days. That name
> came about because of a - ahem - correspondence with Microsoft's attorneys.
> Essentially, we're not allowed to use a better name (that is, leaving off
> the OS designators), and listing all of the options is just too unwieldy
> "Janus/Ada 95 Professional for Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/2003".
> In any case, it would be a bad idea to change the name until there is a new
> release, so we're going to have to live with it for a while.

Well as I see it mentioning it works with the other operating systems
once on your company site and explaining the name of the product on
one line would fix any confusions. I am relatively new to Ada, so I
want to make sure that a product will work with my computer before I
shell out $2000 or more on a program.
 
> I'm not quite sure why this suddenly is in issue (this is the second time in
> two days that someone has mentioned this); the name has been rather obsolete
> for more than 5 years (since Windows 98 and Windows 2000 came out), and no
> one has complained. Sigh.

Up until I heard from you that your product works with Windows XP I
was assuming that it didn't. I may have read too many software licence
agreements. I always assumed with software the rule was caveat emptor,
let the buyer beware.

Yours truly
Thomas