Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

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

"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
>
>