Verdix kisses off Ada

Verdix kisses off Ada

[Gregory Aharonian]

>From the May 6, 1993 issue of Washington Technology, page 3:

	Verdix Corporation, a leading supplier of software engineering
	products using the Ada programming language, is attempting to
	sell its security products division.  The firm is looking to
	refocus resources on its core software programming business,
	particularly efforts in products for the C++ computer language,
	which has eclipsed use of Ada outside of the Pentagon.


    What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?
For all Ada compiler companies to fail and/or refocus on C++? For all Ada
components vendors to fail and/or switch over to C++?  For all of the
services to pay lip service to the Mandate? For DoD software developments
costs to go through the roof?   WHAT??????

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimiztion
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[Anders Thulin]

In article <SRCTRAN.93May13124224@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:

>
>	[Verdix] is looking to
>	refocus resources on its core software programming business,
>	particularly efforts in products for the C++ computer language,
>	which has eclipsed use of Ada outside of the Pentagon.
>
>
>    What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?
>For all Ada compiler companies to fail and/or refocus on C++? 

Hardly. A solid economical study that strongly indicates that the life
time support costs for Ada-implementations are larger than those for
C++ products should be enough.

After all, that was the reason for Ada in the first place, wasn't it?

-- 
Anders Thulin        ath@linkoping.trab.se        013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[Bruce Jones]

>In article <SRCTRAN.93May13124224@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregor
y Aharonian) writes:
>
>	[Verdix] is looking to
>	refocus resources on its core software programming business,
>	particularly efforts in products for the C++ computer language,
>	which has eclipsed use of Ada outside of the Pentagon.

It is obvious to most people, I think, that Ada _is_ Verdix' "core
software programming business".  Our Ada business is growing and 
profitable and we like it that way.  We're working very hard on our
Ada compilers and in support of our many Ada customers.

It just so happens that much of the VADS technology can also be applied
to C/C++/whatever compilers, and that we think the new compilers that
result will be competitive in their markets just as VADS is a top-notch
competitor in the Ada market.  
	
	-- brucej

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[news]

In article <SRCTRAN.93May13124224@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregor
y Aharonian) writes:
*From the May 6, 1993 issue of Washington Technology, page 3:
*
*	Verdix Corporation, a leading supplier of software engineering
*	products using the Ada programming language, is attempting to
*	sell its security products division.  The firm is looking to
*	refocus resources on its core software programming business,
*	particularly efforts in products for the C++ computer language,
*	which has eclipsed use of Ada outside of the Pentagon.
*
*
*    What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?
*For all Ada compiler companies to fail and/or refocus on C++? For all Ada
*components vendors to fail and/or switch over to C++?  For all of the
*services to pay lip service to the Mandate? For DoD software developments
*costs to go through the roof?   WHAT??????
*Greg Aharonian

How about losing a war to an adversary which simply paid the $250 for a
copy of Borland C++ at Comp-USA (and whose weapon systems thus all worked)?




-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[Robert Kitzberger]

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>How about losing a war to an adversary which simply paid the $250 for a
>copy of Borland C++ at Comp-USA (and whose weapon systems thus all worked)?

I can see it now... NORAD being controlled by '486 boxes running DOS...

	.Bob.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kitzberger                          Internet:   rlk@rational.com
Rational, Grass Valley, CA              CompuServe: 70743,1550
type Opinion is private; 

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[David Emery]

Then the missiles launch, the NORAD Commander punches the button, and
gets the magical message:  "Bus Error, core dumped."
				dave

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[Robert I. Eachus]

   In article <SRCTRAN.93May13124224@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gre
gory Aharonian) writes:

  > What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?

   In article <1060@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:

  > How about losing a war to an adversary which simply paid the $250 for a
  > copy of Borland C++ at Comp-USA (and whose weapon systems thus all worked)?

     Let's see, what wars were decided recently, and what part did
software play (both Ada and non-Ada).  Oh well, I guess Ted and Greg
didn't want to know the answers after all...

     In the Gulf War, the US had lots of FORTRAN which worked
reasonably well, some Ada, which worked very well indeed, and probably
some COTS C software in the PC's used by the company clerks.  Overall,
it certainly looked like more (Allied) Ada would have resulted in
fewer Allied casualties.  Do either of you have ANY data which would
indicate otherwise?  I'd be very impressed by any details on how
heroic efforts to modify COTS systems written in C or C++ managed to
save the day, or even one life.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

re: verdix kisses off Ada

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!ogicse!verdix!sfz]

Verdix Corporation has been described as "kissing off Ada."  As Vice
President of Compiler Products for Verdix, I would like to correct
the record.  The following posting was made to comp.lang.ada:

> >From the May 6, 1993 issue of Washington Technology, page 3:
> 
>     Verdix Corporation, a leading supplier of software engineering
>     products using the Ada programming language, is attempting to
>     sell its security products division.  The firm is looking to
>     refocus resources on its core software programming business,
>     particularly efforts in products for the C++ computer language,
>     which has eclipsed use of Ada outside of the Pentagon.
> 
> 
>     What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?
> For all Ada compiler companies to fail and/or refocus on C++? For all Ada
> components vendors to fail and/or switch over to C++?  For all of the
> services to pay lip service to the Mandate? For DoD software developments
> costs to go through the roof?   WHAT??????
> 
> Greg Aharonian
> -- 
> **************************************************************************
> Greg Aharonian
>  Source Translation & Optimiztion
>  P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

The above quoted article seems to have left a misimpression, at least
with Mr. Aharonian.  Verdix continues to invest
enthusiastically in its Ada tool technology, which supplies a complete set
of development tools to a wide range of customers, for most popular hosts
and targets.  Verdix Ada technology is also supplied by OEMs such as Sun
Microsystems and Silicon Graphics.

Verdix does internal development in C, C++ and Ada, but generally has found
that Ada is the most cost effective language for new development.  We follow
similar guidelines to the DoD: if an internal module is to be more than
30% recoded we will use Ada.  We have records of all changes ever made in the
development of Verdix products; those records show us that for the lifecycle
Ada seems to be about 2x or better for cost effectiveness than C.  C++ numbers
are too early to show meaningful results.  In general we expect C++ to be best
for integrating known "objects" when writing relatively concise new programs,
while Ada and later Ada9x are better for realtime, for precise and for
extensively new programs.

Our customer base seems, for the most part, happy with our products and
with Ada.  We are happy that our Ada business has shown consistent growth and
profitability for the last 6-7 years, thanks to those happy customers - Verdix
does most of its marketing by word-of-mouth amongst its potential customers.

The purpose of the Ada mandate has been to encourage use of a new technology
through its long introductory period, when many understood that such complex
new technology would require substantial investment and time.  Many new
technologies receive support for decades before they become cost effective.
The Ada mandate is there because the DoD realized that decisions on its
complex, extensive software should not be made on the basis of making code
easy to write, but rather making code easier to maintain.  The commercial
world has different goals; in most industries it is better to get something
in the market quickly than it is to be as concerned with long-term maintenance,
since a maintenance stream is a gold mine to the supplier.  Thus some of the
important motivators for Ada are weakened in the commercial world today, with
exceptions for code needing high reliability such as airplanes.

Even so, Verdix is patiently building ever-improving Ada technology with
the expectation that competitive forces and natural business evolution will
increase the use of Ada both inside and outside of the DoD.

Ada provides several important facillities not available yet in C/C++.
Verdix is introducing VADSmp and DADS this year: VADSmp lets Ada tasks take
advantage of shared memory multiprocessing, while the more ambitious DADS
(Distributed Applications Development System) does the same for Ada users
atop homogenous distributed systems.  Both products perform multiprocessing
transparent to the Ada programmer:  the same build/debug tools are all
there just as for VADS.  These product lines provide significant, indeed some
have said "revolutionary", new capabilities to Ada users, in production
quality form not available in C, C++ or other mainstream languages.  Verdix
is seeing commercial interest in Ada already, and with these new products
we hope that Ada usage can accelerate.

Our C++/C efforts are equally serious.  They represent our conviction that
languages are like tools in other industries - it's not good to try to hammer
with a saw or to saw with a hammer.  Our company is dedicated to making
compatible tools, so that our customers are free to choose the right tool for
the right job.  Our clients should be able to mix Ada, C and C++, while using
the power of DADS and VADSmp.
Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha  OR
Keywords: 

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!taurus.cs.nps.navy.mi]

In article <9573@verdix.verdix.com> sfz@verdix.com (Stephen Zeigler) writes:
>Verdix Corporation has been described as "kissing off Ada."  As Vice
>President of Compiler Products for Verdix, I would like to correct
>the record. ...

>Verdix does internal development in C, C++ and Ada, but generally has found
>that Ada is the most cost effective language for new development.

Does this include your C or C++ compiler?  i.e., is it written in Ada?
(I have to admit that I hope the answer is yes - it would give me a
certain perverse sense of satisfaction to picture the great unwashed
masses using Ada-based tools...).

-Dave Erickson

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <C78y2J.JHv@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> erickson@cs.nps.navy.mil (David 
Erickson) writes:
>
>>Verdix does internal development in C, C++ and Ada, but generally has found
>>that Ada is the most cost effective language for new development.
>
>Does this include your C or C++ compiler?  i.e., is it written in Ada?
>(I have to admit that I hope the answer is yes - it would give me a
>certain perverse sense of satisfaction to picture the great unwashed
>masses using Ada-based tools...).
>
Equally interesting would be the prices Verdix charges for the Ada and
other compilrs on the same host-target pair.

My guess is that Verdix isn't developing its own C/C++ compilers anyway.
They may be doing tools, but unless they have changed their direction
recently, they are glomming onto others' compilers. Am I right?

Mike Feldman

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Val Kartchner]

David Erickson (erickson@cs.nps.navy.mil) wrote:
: In article <9573@verdix.verdix.com> sfz@verdix.com (Stephen Zeigler) writes:
: >Verdix Corporation has been described as "kissing off Ada."  As Vice
: >President of Compiler Products for Verdix, I would like to correct
: >the record. ...

: >Verdix does internal development in C, C++ and Ada, but generally has found
: >that Ada is the most cost effective language for new development.

: Does this include your C or C++ compiler?  i.e., is it written in Ada?
: (I have to admit that I hope the answer is yes - it would give me a
: certain perverse sense of satisfaction to picture the great unwashed
: masses using Ada-based tools...).

But not nearly as much (perverse?) pleasure as GNU Ada being developed in
C/C++.  It's wonderfully ironic that the Ada advocates rely on those who
they perceive as being diametrically opposed to all of their ideals, the
GNU C/C++ hackers, to write the tool that will make the world "see the
light" that is Ada.

I do so enjoy irony on this scale.  :-]  <- (Big smile of joy.)

--
|================= #include <stddisclaimer.h> ================///=============|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind" (tm) Commodore /// Weber State  |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us"(tm) Apple \\\///   University  |
|== "I think, therefore I AMiga" -- val@csulx.weber.edu ==\///= Ogden UT USA =|

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Tucker Taft]

In article <1993May19.232552.7861@fcom.cc.utah.edu> 
  val@fcom.cc.utah.edu (Val Kartchner) writes:

> . . .
>But not nearly as much (perverse?) pleasure as GNU Ada being developed in
>C/C++.  

I'm sure that some member of the GNU Ada team will berate you appropriately,
but just for the record, the front end of GNU Ada9X is written in Ada,
and will be bootstrapped through itself.  The backend is the
preexisting GNU backend, which is written in C only, as far as I know.
There is an interface layer between the two that is also written
in C, largely for pragmatic, rather than ideological, reasons.

> . . .It's wonderfully ironic that the Ada advocates rely on those who
>they perceive as being diametrically opposed to all of their ideals, the
>GNU C/C++ hackers, to write the tool that will make the world "see the
>light" that is Ada.

Ooh boy, calling the GNU Ada team "hackers" is really asking for
trouble.  I suggest you quickly put on your flame-proof suit...

> . . .
>| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind" (tm) Commodore /// Weber State  
|
>| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us"(tm) Apple \\\///   University  
|
>|== "I think, therefore I AMiga" -- val@csulx.weber.edu ==\///= Ogden UT USA =
|

S. Tucker Taft
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Robert Dewar]

I am sorry to puncture a "wonderful irony", but GNU Ada is NOT being developed
in C or C++. Here is the exact story:

GNAT (the official name for GNU/Ada, it stands for GNU NYU Ada Translator)
uses the existing GCC backend. That is, for understandable historical reasons
written in C, and we are using it pretty much as is, with some minor changes
to accomodate Ada (minor here means that the total impact is a small fraction
of the original work). We are *not* going to rewrite this in Ada -- there are
good technical and non-technical reasons for this decision, and note that even
if this were a project covered by the mandate, no one would suggest that it
makes sense to rewrite several hundred thousand lines of code in Ada just for
the sake of doing so!

The front end of GNAT, which is really where the development of the project
is, is in Ada. Currently, for obvious bootstrap reasons, it is in Ada 83, but
may eventually shift to 9X as we bootstrap (a point we are close to right
now). The GNAT front end is currently about 68,000 lines (23,000 if you count
semicolons).

Finally there is a relatively small interface module, called Gigi (*), that
takes the Ada tree and constructs the GCC tree for the backend. This is
written in C because it needs to connect intimately to the C structures in
the backend. Actually if we were fully bootstrapped, we probably COULD 
rewrite this in Ada, since GNAT will inter-operate very closely with GNU C,
but there was no way to do this early on, and in any case Gigi is only
a couple of thousand lines of pretty straightforward C.

So, in terms of new code being written, GNAT is over 90% in Ada. The
percentage will increase as time goes on, because we have a lot more 
additions still to go in the front end. Furthermore, the runtime will
also be all in Ada, except for the usual tiny operating system interface
stuff that is needed at a low level.

So, no irony here! Furthermore, I should report that the experience in
switching from C to Ada in our Ada group at NYU (the old Ada Ed code was,
as I think people are aware, all in C), was quite remarkable.

Our C code suffered from all the usual defects that people associate with
C (lack of documentation, lack of clear interface design, incompatible
coding styles, very variable quality etc.)

When we started coding in Ada, our whole approach changed.  We started having
regular design meetings which focussed on package spec design etc. etc. You
all know this story, I don't have to repeat it in detail, but it certainly
is interesting to see it happening again in ones own back yard!

	Robert Dewar (codirector with Ed Schonberg of GNAT project at NYU)


(*) For the curious, the etymology of the name Gigi is that this program
translates from the GNAT tree to the GCC tree, hence it came to be called
G-to-G or G-squared, and thus Gigi became a natural, somewhat more colorful
version of the same name.

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[arthur.j.northrup]

In article <9573@verdix.verdix.com>, sfz@verdix.com (Stephen Zeigler) writes:
> Verdix Corporation has been described as "kissing off Ada."  As Vice
> President of Compiler Products for Verdix, I would like to correct
> the record.  The following posting was made to comp.lang.ada:
> 
> > >From the May 6, 1993 issue of Washington Technology, page 3:
> > 
> >     Verdix Corporation, a leading supplier of software engineering
> >     products using the Ada programming language, is attempting to
> >     sell its security products division.  The firm is looking to
> >     refocus resources on its core software programming business,
> >     particularly efforts in products for the C++ computer language,
> >     which has eclipsed use of Ada outside of the Pentagon.
> > 
> > 
> >     What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?
> > For all Ada compiler companies to fail and/or refocus on C++? For all Ada
> > components vendors to fail and/or switch over to C++?  For all of the
> > services to pay lip service to the Mandate? For DoD software developments
> > costs to go through the roof?   WHAT??????
> > 
> > Greg Aharonian
> > -- 
> > **************************************************************************
> > Greg Aharonian
> >  Source Translation & Optimiztion
> >  P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
> 
> The above quoted article seems to have left a misimpression, at least
> with Mr. Aharonian.  Verdix continues to invest
> enthusiastically in its Ada tool technology, which supplies a complete set
> of development tools to a wide range of customers, for most popular hosts
> and targets.  Verdix Ada technology is also supplied by OEMs such as Sun
> Microsystems and Silicon Graphics.
> 
> Verdix does internal development in C, C++ and Ada, but generally has found
> that Ada is the most cost effective language for new development.  We follow
> similar guidelines to the DoD: if an internal module is to be more than
> 30% recoded we will use Ada.  We have records of all changes ever made in the
> development of Verdix products; those records show us that for the lifecycle
> Ada seems to be about 2x or better for cost effectiveness than C.  C++ number
s
> are too early to show meaningful results.  In general we expect C++ to be bes
t
> for integrating known "objects" when writing relatively concise new programs,
> while Ada and later Ada9x are better for realtime, for precise and for
> extensively new programs.
> 
[ Many interesting lines deleted]

I question whether posts such as this post from Mr. Aharonian are productive.
It seems that Ada vendors MUST reply in order to set the record straight but
what if there is no reason to straighten the record in the first place?  The
little bit of the article provided doesn't indicate that Verdix is abandoning
Ada.  So long as they don't compromise their Ada activities, I believe that it
is in the best interest of Verdix and other Ada related companies to become
multifaceted less they be out of business if the Ada market does evaporate.

Having Ada vendors acutely aware of the latest rage in software languges has
got to help as Ada undergoes its redefinitions (e.g., Ada-9x).


============================================================================
=  Art Northrup        |       THIS PAGE       | Of course these are my    =
=  CAP Gemini America  |     INTENTIONALLY     | opinions --- who else     =
=  at AT&T Bell Labs   |       LEFT BLANK      | would want them?          =
============================================================================

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Robert Dewar]

Ooh boy, calling the GNU Ada team "hackers" is really asking for
trouble.  I suggest you quickly put on your flame-proof suit...

Not to worry, no real flames on that score. Hacker after all is a venerable
term with all sorts of connotations. What I think I can say is that the
project at NYU is run in a manner comparable to a typical compiler project
in a commercial compiler company (apart from being willing to share what
we are doing!) We operate with a source control system, a fairly rigid set
of coding standards, well defined specifications, and a heavy emphasis on
design and structure, and so far this seems to be working well for us. If
anyone is in New York and would like to visit us, they would be welcome,
send me email, and you can see for yourself! I am afraid it won't completely
satisfy those who like to think of us working in a "true" hacker mode!

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[news]

In article <EACHUS.93May17172041@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitre.org (
Robert I. Eachus) writes:
*
*   In article <SRCTRAN.93May13124224@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gr
egory Aharonian) writes:
*
*  > What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?
*
*   In article <1060@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
*
*  > How about losing a war to an adversary which simply paid the $250 for a
*  > copy of Borland C++ at Comp-USA (and whose weapon systems thus all worked)
?
*
*     Let's see, what wars were decided recently, and what part did
*software play (both Ada and non-Ada).  Oh well, I guess Ted and Greg
*didn't want to know the answers after all...
*
*     In the Gulf War, the US had lots of FORTRAN which worked
*reasonably well, some Ada, which worked very well indeed, and probably
*some COTS C software in the PC's used by the company clerks.  Overall,
*it certainly looked like more (Allied) Ada would have resulted in
*fewer Allied casualties.  Do either of you have ANY data which would
*indicate otherwise?  I'd be very impressed by any details on how
*heroic efforts to modify COTS systems written in C or C++ managed to
*save the day, or even one life.
*
*					Robert I. Eachus

I do know that the entire software development community of the United
States has irrevocably standardized on C and C++, and that they've also
basically taken one look at Ada, and said "You've got to be kidding!"
I know that such complex software items as the varied flavors of UNIX,
the commercial databases, the commercial wordprocessors, Windows NT,
etc. etc. ad infinitum are all being written in C/C++.  They all work.
I know that to try to swim against this tide, DOD is going to end up
spending ten or more times the going rate for everything they ever
do in life, both time and money, and that that's no way to live.  They'll
have to reinvent every wheel;  Things which I simply order from the
Programmer's Connection (software reusability or something like that)
DOD will always have to reinvent from scratch.  I know for sure that
it is always safer to simply use something which is known to work than
to reinvent it.

Aside from all of that, history is full of examples of resources being
used wisely and well by the winning side:  the victory ship and the
escort carrier from WW-II are two such examples.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Gregory Aharonian]

>I question whether posts such as this post from Mr. Aharonian are productive.
>It seems that Ada vendors MUST reply in order to set the record straight but
>what if there is no reason to straighten the record in the first place?  The
>little bit of the article provided doesn't indicate that Verdix is abandoning
>Ada.

   I disagree.  The article as worded is ambigious, and can be interpreted
to imply that Verdix is abandoning Ada.  Admittedly, I used the article to
make a leap in conclusion.  Maybe I should have argued that Ada companies
have to careful watch what is written about them because so little appears
about Ada that all of the news better be good.  A corporate manager
thinking about adopting Ada might read the original article and think,
"Gee Ada companies seem to be switching languages and being bought out,
which is usually not a good sign.  Maybe the language is too unsteady
for us to adopt".  Purely a perception problem, but given all of the bad
press Ada and Ada projects get, it's important to avoid ambiguity.  It
would be great of Verdix could get the magazine to run the response as
a letter to the editor.

Greg
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <C7BvpG.7sB@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ajn@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (arthur.j.nor
thrup) writes:
>It seems that Ada vendors MUST reply in order to set the record straight but
>what if there is no reason to straighten the record in the first place?  The
>little bit of the article provided doesn't indicate that Verdix is abandoning
>Ada.  So long as they don't compromise their Ada activities, I believe that it
>is in the best interest of Verdix and other Ada related companies to become
>multifaceted less they be out of business if the Ada market does evaporate.
>
At the risk of offending vendors or being unduly confrontational, I contribute
my $0.02 to this discussion. The Ada vendors have been saying, consistently,
that they are small companies with scarce resources for e.g. 

- marketing Ada to the non-mandated world, by going to non-Ada shows,
  advertising, etc.;

- supporting schools, in a friendly manner, in getting started teaching Ada, 
  without nickel-and-diming them for "support" those schools don't use;

- testing the elasticity in the Ada market by lowering compiler and tool
  prices to meet the _real_ competition outside the mandate, namely the
  other languages;

There is more but you get the idea. These are not mere extrapolations from
out-of-context quotations, they are paraphrased quotes from principals of
nearly every Ada compiler and tool house. I make a practice of avoiding
flaming individual companies or individuals; in this case my points above
apply to them all anyway.

Miraculously an Ada company finds the resources to develop a C++ compiler.
I said in a previous post that Verdix was "glomming" onto others' C compilers
which they used to write their _Ada_ compilers. I still believe that to be
true. Presumably they are bootstrapping their own C/C++ compilers by
glomming onto the other ones as well (nothing wrong here, it's a time-
honored bootstrapping process).

Now if Verdix were using their _Ada_ compiler to develop their C++ compiler,
that would really be a man-bites-dog story!

-----

A dollar can only be spent once. If the resources aren't there to build bigger
Ada markets, how are they available to build C/C++ compilers? 

Verdix is only today's example. Ask the major vendors; look at their
literature. Instead of scrounging resources to build Ada markets beyond
the mandate, they are scrounging resources to meet the C++ challenge by
building C++ compilers and tools.

What Verdix' response said was that somehow they are finding resources to
diversify, but not to build the Ada marketplace, to make the pie bigger
so that Verdix' and everyone else's pieces are enlarged.

Since a dollar can be spent only once, are Verdix' C++ dollars new ones?
If not, then pray tell how investing in C++ is not a de-investment in
Ada. Straighten me out on this; I have no MBA with which to figure 
it out myself.

If indeed the dollars are new ones, then Verdix might have been able to 
convince those sources that _Ada_ was worth investing in. I assume they
tried. Did they get back a message that Ada was _not_ worth investing in?

'Scuse me for putting this stuff in my own brand of plain English, but
I'm truly baffled.

Mike Feldman

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!ver]

In article <1993May21.162150.20535@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
 Feldman) writes:
>A dollar can only be spent once. If the resources aren't there to build bigger
>Ada markets, how are they available to build C/C++ compilers? 

Mike, its not just a question of dollars, the reason is that the resources 
are different.  The resources needed to build a C/C++ compiler is a team 
of highly skilled compiler engineers.  Verdix has such a team.  You can't
just go buy these people, you have to build the team slowly over time.  

I don't know what resources are needed to build a bigger Ada market, but then
I'm just one of the compiler engineers. I am sure that it takes more than
just money.  I suspect that GNU Ada and Ada 9x will do more to increase 
the size of the Ada market than anything we vendors might do.

	-- brucej

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <9575@verdix.verdix.com> brucej@verdix.com (Bruce Jones) writes:
>In article <1993May21.162150.20535@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michae
l Feldman) writes:
>>A dollar can only be spent once. If the resources aren't there to build bigge
r
>>Ada markets, how are they available to build C/C++ compilers? 
>
>Mike, its not just a question of dollars, the reason is that the resources 
>are different.  The resources needed to build a C/C++ compiler is a team 
>of highly skilled compiler engineers.  Verdix has such a team.  You can't
>just go buy these people, you have to build the team slowly over time.  

Oh, that's certainly true. But each person-hour can be spent only once.
Each hour invested in building a C or C++ compiler is one that's _not_
spent developing Ada stuff whose performance and reliability is such that
people who are spending their own money will buy it.
>
>I don't know what resources are needed to build a bigger Ada market, but then
>I'm just one of the compiler engineers. I am sure that it takes more than
>just money.  I suspect that GNU Ada and Ada 9x will do more to increase 
>the size of the Ada market than anything we vendors might do.

IMHO that's a copout. I have dealt with all the major Ada vendors for 10 
years.  Each time it's been suggested to them about how they could improve
the perception and reality of Ada in the world outside the mandate, they've
come back with lots of ways _someone else_ could do this.

There is no doubt that GNAT will improve accessibility to Ada for
companies and universities interested in getting started with Ada,
without paying the huge prices (relative to other languages) requested
by the Ada companies. This lets the Ada companies off the hook: they
are pushing the responsibility for Ada's future onto others - in this
case, NYU (which is building GNAT) and Uncle Sam (which is funding it). 

Ask any teacher what a vendor could do to help Ada along. You don't have
to wait for Ada9X, or wait for GNAT. We've been telling you for years
how you could build the grass-roots support for Ada by starting in the
schools, just like the hardware companies do. 

The vendors - without even trying - have responded with idiocy like per-seat 
pricing, per-seat support bills, and generally, unfriendly approaches. Asked 
why, they respond that they'd "go broke supporting schools", as though they 
didn't know that compilers used for teaching require almost no support.
(I have to violate my usual policy of not singling out vendors, because -
in my own 10-year experience - Verdix has been by far the worst offender here.)

The net has seen my diatribes on this before; I won't bore you again. But
if the vendors think there's nothing they can do but move to C++, they are
surpassingly myopic. Maybe you and I realize this, but the business types
running the companies just don't get it. We predicted years ago - well
before the C++ wave started, even - that their insistence on Ada "being a
small market" and taking no risk to expand it would guarantee that Ada
would remain a small market. 

We told them so; I can show you chapter and verse where we did. They just 
don't get it. Our prediction has, sadly, come true. And if you think that 
Ada9X or GNAT is miraculously going to change things, think again. Without 
a paradigm shift from the companies, nothing much will change. I'd like to 
be optimistic, but the growing investment of Ada houses in C++ tells me that 
I can't be. Where am I reading about Verdix putting its compiler engineers
to work building an Ada9X compiler that'll blow the doors off C++?

Steve Ziegler's response to the net, for all its warm and fuzzy wording,
is still saying that Verdix would prefer investing in C++ to investing in
really good Ada stuff that real, commercial, profit-oriented organizations
will buy with their own money. 

Wanna bet that Verdix' C++ compilers will be cheaper than their Ada compilers?

Enough.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman
co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee

Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
School of Engineering and Applied Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(202) 994-5253 (voice)
(202) 994-5296 (fax)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)

"The most important thing is to be sincere, 
and once you've learned how to fake that, you've got it made." 
-- old show-business adage
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Verdix kisses off Ada

[Jonathan Schilling]

In article <1078@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) [Ted Holden] writes:
>
>I do know that the entire software development community of the United
>States has irrevocably standardized on C and C++, 

This sounds like some kind of weird corollary to that "The End of History"
political science article that got a lot of attention a couple of years ago.  
Glad I was around to witness the momentous event.

-- 
Jonathan Schilling
DDC-I, Inc.
uunet!ddciiny!jls

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.]

Michael Feldman (mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <9575@verdix.verdix.com> brucej@verdix.com (Bruce Jones) writes:
: >In article <1993May21.162150.20535@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Mich
ael Feldman) writes:
: >>A dollar can only be spent once. If the resources aren't there to build big
ger
: >>Ada markets, how are they available to build C/C++ compilers? 
: >
: >Mike, its not just a question of dollars, the reason is that the resources 
: >are different.  The resources needed to build a C/C++ compiler is a team 
: >of highly skilled compiler engineers.  Verdix has such a team.  You can't
: >just go buy these people, you have to build the team slowly over time.  

: Oh, that's certainly true. But each person-hour can be spent only once.
: Each hour invested in building a C or C++ compiler is one that's _not_
: spent developing Ada stuff whose performance and reliability is such that
: people who are spending their own money will buy it.

Each person-hour can only be spent once, but that one hour can be reused.
What I mean by this is that the same principles go into building a compiler
for both Ada and C++.  (Other languages could also be included, but this
is a sufficiently large group to demonstrate my point.)

As demonstrated by the GNAT project, even if the frontend of a compiler is
written from scratch, the same backend(s) can be used.  These backends
include code-generators, optimizers, and debuggers.  All of DEC's compiled
languages on VAX/VMS use the same debugger.  It is even rumored (because
I haven't had sufficient confirmation) that all of these languages use the
same code-generators and optimizers.

I've heard that since C++ has added exceptions, GNU (not the GNAT team) is
in the process of rewriting the C++ compiler backend to support this.  The
work of the GNAT team may or may not be rolled back into the backend by
GNU.  (I'd appreciate hearing about this from a well informed source.  Is
the co-director of GNAT still listening?)

It takes skilled persons to write commercial compilers, but they don't have
to write code that is used for just one language/project.  This is the point
of reuse.

Nevertheless, Verdix may end up selling their C++ compiler for a lower price
than their Ada compiler.  It may be as simple (is anything in economics
simple :-) ?) as being able to spread the development costs over a larger
expected sales volume.

			-=:[ VAL ]:=-
--
|================= #include <stddisclaimer.h> ================///=============|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind" (tm) Commodore /// Weber State  |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us"(tm) Apple \\\///   University  |
|== "I think, therefore I AMiga" -- val@csulx.weber.edu ==\///= Ogden UT USA =|

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Greg Titus]

In article <1993May24.220351.22467@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@csulx.weber.edu writes
:
>...
>
>Nevertheless, Verdix may end up selling their C++ compiler for a lower price
>than their Ada compiler.  It may be as simple (is anything in economics
>simple :-) ?) as being able to spread the development costs over a larger
>expected sales volume.

And thereby hangs our tail.   ;-)

The point we have been hearing so often in this discussion is that the
vendors, for whatever reason(s), did not undertake certain strategies
that would have increased the demand for Ada.  Now it appears that at
least one of them is attempting to expand into a market that exists
precisely because some other entity (Bell+Berkeley) did undertake
those strategies (for UNIX and C).

Oh, the delicious irony of it all!

greg
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com)                   Compiler Group
Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <1993May24.181812.5019@hemlock.cray.com> gbt@cray.com (Greg Titus) w
rites:
>
[...]

>The point we have been hearing so often in this discussion is that the
>vendors, for whatever reason(s), did not undertake certain strategies
>that would have increased the demand for Ada.  Now it appears that at
>least one of them is attempting to expand into a market that exists
>precisely because some other entity (Bell+Berkeley) did undertake
>those strategies (for UNIX and C).
>

[...]

Don't forget DoD, in the form of ARPA (DARPA, whatever it was called
then) which funded most of Berkeley's UNIX development. At that time,
at least parts of the DoD seemed to know how to seed the right kind of
R&D, to get it to the point where it could be easily commercialized.
One of the Berkeley developers at the time was a grad student called
Bill Joy, whose name might ring a bell. He was one of the founders of
Sun, the first company to put Berkeley UNIX into wide commercial
application. UNIX was going nowhere commercially till then.

And don't forget that DARPA also sponsored X up at MIT.

For all that the early SETL releases of Ada/Ed got flamed for poor 
performance, they were never supposed to perform well. The Army's
funding of that project showed Ada's implementability and provided
a testbed for the early ACVC. The C version of Ada/Ed, finally
released for ftp in 1992, is a decent performer that's making a dent
"out there" in the schools.

Compare that with the way the services funded ALS and AIE, which were 
overtaken by events by the time they appeared. I've heard many
explanations for the failure of those projects; I'll leave it to
others to post their perceptions if they choose to do so.

In funding GNAT, DoD, now in the form of the Ada9x office, is going
back to the DARPA/Berkeley or Army/NYU or DARPA/MIT approach.
Let's hope the approach is vindicated again. I think it will be.

Not to put too fine a point on it, those of you who think that
universities are full of nothing but fuzzy-headed academics can
think about these DoD-funded university success stories a while.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman
co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee

Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
School of Engineering and Applied Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(202) 994-5253 (voice)
(202) 994-5296 (fax)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)

"The most important thing is to be sincere, 
and once you've learned how to fake that, you've got it made." 
-- old show-business adage
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Laurence VanDolsen]

In article <1993May24.181812.5019@hemlock.cray.com> gbt@cray.com (Greg Titus) w
rites:
>
>The point we have been hearing so often in this discussion is that the
>vendors, for whatever reason(s), did not undertake certain strategies
>that would have increased the demand for Ada.  Now it appears that at
>least one of them is attempting to expand into a market that exists
>precisely because some other entity (Bell+Berkeley) did undertake
>those strategies (for UNIX and C).
>
>Oh, the delicious irony of it all!
>
Why is it ironic, or even somehow shameful, that a compiler vendor with a
current specialty in Ada compilers should choose to leverage their
ability by providing compilers for multiple languages?  Nobody seems to
think it shameful that other compiler specialists have concurrent
offerings for C, C++, PASCAL, FORTRAN, etc.  It has even been suggested
by many that the sign of the success of Ada will be when Borland
announces Turbo-Ada.  And when they do, how many flames will erupt over
the fact that they will write it in C++?

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[Richard Kenner]

In article <1993May24.220351.22467@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@csulx.weber.edu writes
:
>I've heard that since C++ has added exceptions, GNU (not the GNAT team) is
>in the process of rewriting the C++ compiler backend to support this.  The
>work of the GNAT team may or may not be rolled back into the backend by
>GNU.  (I'd appreciate hearing about this from a well informed source.  Is
>the co-director of GNAT still listening?)

Robert Dewar asked me to respond to this.

There are now three languages that want to use the GCC backend and
also support exceptions: Modula-3, Ada, and C++.  For a number of
months we had both in-person and email discussions of the issues
involved in implementing a common mechanism for handling exceptions
between the three languages.  We also anticipate adding extensions to
GNU C to support exceptions.

Since our goal in every other part of GNAT design is to allow full
mixing of languages, we want to ensure that the design of the
exception mechanism also permits this.  We decided, for now, to avoid
the language issues of how one language will refer to another's
exceptions and the fact that there are semantic differences between
what an exception is in the languages, and instead ensure that our
low-level mechanism is general enough to allow cross-language
exception catching if we could make sense of it at the language level.
But you will certainly be able to propagate an Ada exception up
through functions written in some other GCC-supported language to
another Ada subprogram.

We also need to support the various language "cleanup" features in
blocks and subprograms that are unwound when an exception is handled.
Again, this needs to be language-independent.

In addition, we want a "zero-overhead" mechanism that depends on
tables of PC ranges instead of having executable code set up exception
handlers.  Note that I put "zero-overhead" in quotes because the
mechanism is not entirely free.  In some cases register allocation
will be adversely affected and on some machines you have to execute a
"barrier" instruction when changing exception boundaries.

Finally, remember that we want this mechanism to work on all
GCC-supported targets, of which there are currently 27.  So we need a
method that handles at least three languages on 27 machines.  We also
do not want to our exception mechanism to impose too much of a burden
people who port GCC to a new architecture.

The current state of the design is that we understand how to solve
almost all of the problems.  Robert has written a draft of a long note
describing the scheme in detail.  However, we had to put this effort
aside for a while due to more pressing issues.  We expect to have this
document ready in the early summer and I will then start the
modifications to the GCC backend to implement them.  These
modifications should be included in whatever version of GCC is
released sometime in the fall.

As to whether the "GNU project" or "GNAT project" is doing this work:
I wear both hats.  Starting in a few months I will be taking over GCC
maintenance and development from RMS and will be 50% funded by a
consortium of interested companies.  The other 50% of my funding will
come from GNAT.

VERDIX KISSES OFF ADA

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.]

On Tue, 25 May 1993, Laurence Vandolsen posted to All:

  . It has even been suggested
  . by many that the sign of the success of Ada will be when Borland
  . announces Turbo-Ada.  And when they do, how many flames will erupt over
  . the fact that they will write it in C++?

If it is to compete with TurboPascal, it had better be written in hand-coded
assembler...

Regards, Mikey <michael.hagerty@nitelog.com>
---
 . MR/2 1.50 #63 . I believe in getting in hot water; it keeps you clean.
                    

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.co]

In <1993May24.220351.22467@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@fcom.cc.utah.edu (Val Kartchne
r) writes:

>As demonstrated by the GNAT project, even if the frontend of a compiler is
>written from scratch, the same backend(s) can be used.  These backends
>include code-generators, optimizers, and debuggers.  All of DEC's compiled
>languages on VAX/VMS use the same debugger.  It is even rumored (because
>I haven't had sufficient confirmation) that all of these languages use the
>same code-generators and optimizers.

They do (or did -- don't know if they still do, since I haven't messed
much with VAXen in a while).  There used to be an optimizer bug on
certain types of loop constructs -- and it was broken in Pascal and
FORTRAN, both.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: VERDIX KISSES OFF ADA

[Robert Dewar]

"If it [Turbo-Ada] is to compete with Turbo-Pascal, it had better be
written in hand coded assembler"

I think that's a wrong conclusion. In fact I think that Turbo-Pascal is
disappointingly slow given the fact that it operates in memory and is
written in assembler. I would think it should be ten times faster than
it is under these conditions. My hand coded scanner and parser for Ada
runs at nearly 3,000,000 lines a minute on a top end PC, so I would
certainly think that a complete compilr (generating pretty straightforward
code, as TP does) should be able to achieve 500,000 - 1,000,000 lines/minute.

Another point of comparison is that Turbo-Pascal is not significantly
faster than Realia COBOL, but the latter compiler is written entirely in
COBOL and is a six pass compiler that definitely does *not* keep everything 
in memory (in fact even the symbol table is on disk, though of course these
disk files are in practice buffered in avaiolable memrory wheere possible).

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!digits.enet.dec.com!brett]

In article <1993May27.214741.1967@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com 
(fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>>include code-generators, optimizers, and debuggers.  All of DEC's compiled
>>languages on VAX/VMS use the same debugger.  It is even rumored (because
>>I haven't had sufficient confirmation) that all of these languages use the
>>same code-generators and optimizers.
> 
>They do (or did -- don't know if they still do, since I haven't messed
>much with VAXen in a while).  There used to be an optimizer bug on
>certain types of loop constructs -- and it was broken in Pascal and
>FORTRAN, both.
>
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me
.

I have been in the compiler group at DEC for the last ten years.

VAX Fortran has always had its own code generator.
VAX Pascal V1.0 had its own.
VAX Pascal V2.0 and later had its own.
VAX C, VAX PL/I, and VAX Ada have always shared their code generator; although
these days they are very different versions of the base cg because the
different projects evolved in different ways.
VAX Cobol had its own, but I think it had common origins with VAX Fortran.
VAX Basic had its own.

The Mips compilers have used two different code generators, one based on the
one that came from Mips Co., and the other based on our new highly optimizing
GEM code generator technology

The Alpha compilers are all using the GEM technology.

Bevin Brett
Consulting Engineer
DEC Ada compiler team

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu]

In <1993May28.131626.3612@dbased.nuo.dec.com> brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My nam
e is...) writes:


>In article <1993May27.214741.1967@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com
 (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>>>include code-generators, optimizers, and debuggers.  All of DEC's compiled
>>>languages on VAX/VMS use the same debugger.  It is even rumored (because
>>>I haven't had sufficient confirmation) that all of these languages use the
>>>same code-generators and optimizers.
>> 
>>They do (or did -- don't know if they still do, since I haven't messed
>>much with VAXen in a while).  There used to be an optimizer bug on
>>certain types of loop constructs -- and it was broken in Pascal and
>>FORTRAN, both.
>>
>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for m
e.

>I have been in the compiler group at DEC for the last ten years.

>VAX Fortran has always had its own code generator.
>VAX Pascal V1.0 had its own.
>VAX Pascal V2.0 and later had its own.

So you're telling me that loop optimization in two independent
compilers was screwed up in the same way?  Or are you addressing
strictly the "code generator" part and not the idea of a common
optimizer? 

[Could have sworn that DEC told us at the time that all their
compilers used the same back ends.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[David Emery]

>So you're telling me that loop optimization in two independent
>compilers was screwed up in the same way?  Or are you addressing
>strictly the "code generator" part and not the idea of a common
>optimizer? 

Isn't inheritance wonderful!
				dave

Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!digits.enet.dec.com!brett]

In article <1993May28.163638.19696@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com
 (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>In <1993May28.131626.3612@dbased.nuo.dec.com> brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My na
me is...) writes:
> 
>>VAX Fortran has always had its own code generator.
>>VAX Pascal V1.0 had its own.
>>VAX Pascal V2.0 and later had its own.
> 
>So you're telling me that loop optimization in two independent
>compilers was screwed up in the same way?  Or are you addressing
>strictly the "code generator" part and not the idea of a common
>optimizer? 

I don't think they never shared any code, either in the global optimizer, or th
e
instruction selector, or peepholer.  But they may well have had shared designs
or algorithms because the teams did talk to each other.

>[Could have sworn that DEC told us at the time that all their
> compilers used the same back ends.]

DEC is a large company, and a Sales or Sales Support person may have made such 
a
mistake.  This kind of information is not usually in the Sales Update articles,
Software Product Descriptions, etc. that we use to communicate with our sales
force.

/Bevin