From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:30:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.222.98 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1092789043 66.81.222.98 (Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:30:43 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:30:43 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2793 Date: 2004-08-18T00:30:43+00:00 List-Id: "Kevin Cline" wrote in message news:e749549b.0408171554.2f9c48b4@posting.google.com... > > I don't your guru got it quite right. Ada failed because most > programmers who tried it found Ada programming to be relative less > productive than programming in other available languages. Ada never > attracted a large enough base of motivated users to develop the > libraries and IDEs that would make it easy to use. > I wonder why you think Ada is less productive than other available languages. Is it the static typing? Is the ability to define one's own types? Is it the syntax? Is it the way the ALRM is written? Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that a key problem with Ada, in those early days, was that few of those involved in teaching it really understood it well enough to make it clear to those who needed to use it. There are a few simple underlying ideas in the language. One of them is type safety, and that has never been beyond the comprehension of any programmer. The idea that seems to have been difficult to grasp, even by many who consider themselves sophisticated software developers, is the separation of scope and visibility. Chapter Eight of the ALRM is rarely read by anyone, it seems. I recall being at a conference some years ago where someone was giving a tutorial involving Ada. At one point I suggested changing a part of the design to a limited private type. The response, from a member of the technical staff of a well-known compiler publisher, "Oh. We don't design with limited because you can't do anything with a limited type." During nearly twenty years with Ada, I find that more programmers have more trouble with the visibility rules than any other single aspect of the language. Sometimes, I as see a person struggling to overcome those rules, I am reminded of the time during high school when I took a part-time janitorial job and had to learn to use a floor buffer. Anyone who has ever had the experience of a circular floor buffer will know what I am describing. As soon as you take hold of the handle, the buffer goes where it chooses, and no amount of human muscle will overpower it. In fact, the more one tries to control it with brute force, the more it drags you around the room. Eventually, after nearly wrecking the furniture, I discovered that I could take control of the buffer by lightly adjusting its position relative to the floor. In time, I learned to show off by moving the buffer wherever I wanted, using one finger. Instead of fighting the design of the buffer, I learned to accomodate myself to it. Those who had the most difficulty with Ada, and those who continue to have difficulty with it, are often trying to force the language to do things the old way. They are unable to learn how a light touch, using the features of the language, will make one more productive, not less productive. I currently teach Ada in an academic environment. My students are in graduate school and very bright. Many of them have written programs in other languages. When they first encounter Ada, they too want to approach it the way they did other languages. After a short time, they learn the simple ideas behind the design of the language and they learn to like it (most of them). In fact, many like it far better than C++, Java, or many of the other options they have been taught. The benefits of the visibility rules needs to be given emphasis. Those rules are among the most powerful benefits of Ada, even though some programmers continue to see them as a nuisance. Richard Riehle