Bye-bye Ada ?

Bye-bye Ada ?

[Wes Groleau]

Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
to find a new line of work.

C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!

I'll still peek in here once in a while....

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[chris.danx]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> to find a new line of work.
> 
> C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
> part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
> any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!
> 
> I'll still peek in here once in a while....

I don't understand why you feel you have to give up Ada because you're 
out of a job.  Nor do I understand why you've taken the view that 
because you can't have Ada it's time to find a new line of work.  Would 
a mechanic refuse to work on a car if he didn't have his favourite set 
of spanners when others where available?  A joiner refuse to work until 
he got his favourite type of hammer?  Still it's your choice!


See ya,
Danx

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Wes Groleau]

> I don't understand why you feel you have to give up Ada because you're 
> out of a job.  Nor do I understand why you've taken the view that 
> because you can't have Ada it's time to find a new line of work.  Would 

the former is because there's not many Ada options
inthis area--and I'm fed up with relocation.

the latter is that I don't have to.  I can live
with Java. But not with C/C++.  And after nearly
twenty years in Defense/Aerospace, I know I can't
tolerate the kind of software practices that are
S.O.P. in much of the industry.

But for both--hey, I've been thinking about
going into teaching languages for a long time now anyway.

Maybe in the meantime, I'll find the time to
invent one of those "killer apps with Ada inside"
that we keep talking about here.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Marin David Condic]

Let me know if you come up with an idea that sounds good. I'd be interested
in working on some part-time project if I thought it was intriguing and had
the possibility of making a little $$$ along the way. (My wife isn't going
to let me sit in front of the keyboard for hours on end unless theres a
payoff somewhere! :-)

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:FJz_9.2643$c6.2594@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
.
>
> Maybe in the meantime, I'll find the time to
> invent one of those "killer apps with Ada inside"
> that we keep talking about here.
>

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[chris.danx]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Let me know if you come up with an idea that sounds good. I'd be interested
> in working on some part-time project if I thought it was intriguing and had
> the possibility of making a little $$$ along the way. (My wife isn't going
> to let me sit in front of the keyboard for hours on end unless theres a
> payoff somewhere! :-)

What about an open source fully integrated CASE environment?

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Marin David Condic]

I hear tell that someone is already working on that. I'd prefer to do
something a bit more original so as not to duplicate efforts - unless I
thought I could do something better. (In this case, I doubt I'd be able to
bring anything fresh to the table.)

Besides, CASE tools and other programming aids are a tough market. There's a
highly elastic demand and a small number of people (with respect to more
general software) who can actually make use of the end product. It would be
far better to pick some more general industry (like auto repair shops or
beauty parlors or something "professional" like doctors or lawyers) and
research what they'd potentially be able to use to automate their business
more. Develop something for a narrower industry that has a large software
component and some other sort of value-added product (like an integrated
cash register or some on-line service - that's where you make the *real*
money) and you've got something where the big players aren't going to drive
you out of the market.

Also, I think that developing things besides CASE tools is a better way to
promulgate Ada usage. There are already sufficient tools available for Ada
that will allow someone to get the job done, so now go out and find the job.
The end user isn't going to care that you used Ada, so you've got no
resistance to overcome. If you build something that starts gaining
widespread use in some industry other folks will want to play in that
ballpark and you've established the groundrules - use Ada. And if using Ada
is as wonderful as we keep claiming it is, others will want to follow
because you're building better software at a lower price.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

chris.danx <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YSg%9.11201$RZ.121004@newsfep4-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> What about an open source fully integrated CASE environment?
>

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Richard Riehle]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Besides, CASE tools and other programming aids are a tough market. There's a
> highly elastic demand and a small number of people (with respect to more
> general software) who can actually make use of the end product. It would be
> far better to pick some more general industry (like auto repair shops or
> beauty parlors or something "professional" like doctors or lawyers) and
> research what they'd potentially be able to use to automate their business

This is a sensible approach.   There is very little money in developing yet
more tools for creating software.  And that money is being drained away
by the open-source movement.

> Develop something for a narrower industry that has a large software
> component and some other sort of value-added product (like an integrated
> cash register or some on-line service - that's where you make the *real*
> money) and you've got something where the big players aren't going to drive
> you out of the market.

This is called  a "vertical marketing" approach.  Develop expertise in a
particular
industry, learn its demands, its needs, and its way of doing business.   Then,
build
a product that is easier to use, more reliable, and more closely mapped to the
way that industry does business.   Keep the product current as the technology
advances.   Keep the code portable for variations in operating system
availability.
Robert Lief was on the right track with his medical equipment in Ada approach.
I'm not sure whether he ever got very far with it.

I have some friends in Silicon Valley who specialize in developing software
for small medical devices on the I-8051.  They are experts at this after many
years of doing it.  They quietly make money, don't have any intention of going
public, love what they do, and have a clientele of satisfied and repeating
business.

Ada, although not hosted on the I-8051, could be used to serve a similar
market.  A lot of lab equipment needs larger processors now.    There are
robotic assemby lines that need to run on larger processors.  When one looks
around carefully, it seems there is end to the opportunity for creating new
software to upgrade what is already in place, and to sieze the market with
reliable software in embedded industrial applications.

The problem is that too many people with Ada expertise are not of an
entrepreneurial bent.   Long years in doing software by contract has
stunted their ability to do anything except on-spec.   The large users
of Ada such as Lockheed, CSC, Raytheon, etc., simply don't have
the kind of management that understands free-market risk-taking.  I
recall a conversation with one high-ranking official of one of the
large DoD software developers.  He asked what kind of commercial
opportunities I saw for Ada.   I listed several.  His reply astonished
me.  "But who will fund it?"    My answer, stunned him.  "No one.
You need to fund it yourself once you determine there is a market."

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Marin David Condic]

Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3E3EA64A.8B60939C@adaworks.com...
>
> This is a sensible approach.   There is very little money in developing
yet
> more tools for creating software.  And that money is being drained away
> by the open-source movement.
>
You don't see truckloads of money pouring into companies selling compilers,
GUI builders, IDEs, CM tools or other related design/implementation tools
for software. Yes, there are companies, but realistically, there is a *lot*
more software sold for things like accounting, word processing or
game-playing. Companies like Microsoft practically give away their
development tools in order to get people to write software for their OS and
other products. There just isn't enough money in tools to attract me to
wanting to go build some with the hope of making a profit. I probably
wouldn't do any better than the tools that are already out there and - as
you observe - there's too many freebie tools available to make it attractive
to try to earn a living selling some.


>
> This is called  a "vertical marketing" approach.  Develop expertise in a
> particular
> industry, learn its demands, its needs, and its way of doing business.
Then,
> build
> a product that is easier to use, more reliable, and more closely mapped to
the
> way that industry does business.   Keep the product current as the
technology
> advances.   Keep the code portable for variations in operating system
> availability.
> Robert Lief was on the right track with his medical equipment in Ada
approach.
> I'm not sure whether he ever got very far with it.
>
Sure. You get a few guys together that want to address some specific market
and you can get smart enough about it to have something superior to what is
available "Off The Shelf". There's lots of accounting software - but is it
tailored to, say, barber shops? You just need a potential market out there
and a little research into what they want/need and what would help make them
more efficient and then you've really got something. You might make the
product "Open Source" in some sense of the word in order to attract
business, but the ultimate goal needs to be to make a profit - thus
demonstrating that Ada can do the job better.


>
> Ada, although not hosted on the I-8051, could be used to serve a similar
> market.  A lot of lab equipment needs larger processors now.    There are
> robotic assemby lines that need to run on larger processors.  When one
looks
> around carefully, it seems there is end to the opportunity for creating
new
> software to upgrade what is already in place, and to sieze the market with
> reliable software in embedded industrial applications.
>
Someone might specialize in making PC-based lab equipment that is programmed
in Ada. Plug a card into an off the shelf PC and install the software and
there you go. You could give the software away on the Internet in order to
sell the plug-in cards. (Wish I could find something like this for a 1553
Bus Monitor at something approaching a rational price.)

Ideas abound, but there needs to be a willingness to get involved in
executing one to completion. Ada would be promoted only in so far as people
believe it will help them build the products they sell better than other
languages.


> The problem is that too many people with Ada expertise are not of an
> entrepreneurial bent.   Long years in doing software by contract has
> stunted their ability to do anything except on-spec.   The large users
> of Ada such as Lockheed, CSC, Raytheon, etc., simply don't have
> the kind of management that understands free-market risk-taking.  I
> recall a conversation with one high-ranking official of one of the
> large DoD software developers.  He asked what kind of commercial
> opportunities I saw for Ada.   I listed several.  His reply astonished
> me.  "But who will fund it?"    My answer, stunned him.  "No one.
> You need to fund it yourself once you determine there is a market."
>

Well, you've either got to go find some venture capitalist who can dump a
few million in your lap in order to get the development going, or you've got
to do some kind of "Garage Operation". Either way, you've got to have a
well-formulated idea, some market research and a business plan. It takes a
desire to see it come about and a willingness to commit to doing it - and
you're right about the people in the defense industry having a tendancy to
lack the mindset needed to make it happen. Yes, there are exceptions, but
too often we who program in Ada tend to have come along in a world where we
think about "Cool Technology" instead of making a profit. And we're used to
someone else handling all the responsibilities of finding a way to pay the
salaries.

Its not unique to DoD types. Most folks don't have the entrepeneurial
spirit. Its not a crime. It just means they aren't likely to head in the
direction that will lead them to building a successful business. The trick
is to find a few who *do* have the right attitude and are willing to persue
an idea through to completion.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Richard Riehle]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Sure. You get a few guys together that want to address some specific market
> and you can get smart enough about it to have something superior to what is
> available "Off The Shelf". There's lots of accounting software - but is it
> tailored to, say, barber shops? You just need a potential market out there
> and a little research into what they want/need and what would help make them
> more efficient and then you've really got something. You might make the
> product "Open Source" in some sense of the word in order to attract
> business, but the ultimate goal needs to be to make a profit - thus
> demonstrating that Ada can do the job better.

More important, demonstrating that you can build the product your
way and make it successful, regardless of the language you choose.
It Ada works for you, you might want to keep it a secret.  I know
at least one company that refuses to let anyone know it is using
Ada, even though they are happy with it and it is contributing to
their success.

> Ideas abound, but there needs to be a willingness to get involved in
> executing one to completion. Ada would be promoted only in so far as people
> believe it will help them build the products they sell better than other
> languages.

Correct.

> Well, you've either got to go find some venture capitalist who can dump a
> few million in your lap in order to get the development going, or you've got
> to do some kind of "Garage Operation". Either way, you've got to have a
> well-formulated idea, some market research and a business plan. It takes a
> desire to see it come about and a willingness to commit to doing it - and
> you're right about the people in the defense industry having a tendancy to
> lack the mindset needed to make it happen. Yes, there are exceptions, but
> too often we who program in Ada tend to have come along in a world where we
> think about "Cool Technology" instead of making a profit. And we're used to
> someone else handling all the responsibilities of finding a way to pay the
> salaries.

Wrong.  The last thing you want is outside money.   Stay away from Venture
Capitalists.  They will destroy your product, your will, your self-esteem,
and everything you loved about what you were doing.

Software has the benefit of being a low resource product.  One or two
people can build a product in a short time.   This is one place where some
of the Agile Development ideas can benefit a couple of people with a
great idea.   If you have a corporate sponsor who will let you share in
the harvest, good.  But find a sponsor who has the same vision you have
of the final product.

A good model to emulate is that of the founder's of Quicken products.  Check
out how they built their company.   Even Bill Gates story includes some
positive lessons, if one overlooks  the devious methods he sometimes
employs to get results.

> Its not unique to DoD types. Most folks don't have the entrepeneurial
> spirit. Its not a crime. It just means they aren't likely to head in the
> direction that will lead them to building a successful business. The trick
> is to find a few who *do* have the right attitude and are willing to persue
> an idea through to completion.

Correct.  Entrepreneurial means willingness to take risks.  We take those
risks with our own money, our own time, and our own psychological
energy.   It means a willingness to accept failure or success.  If one is
afraid of failure,  and pursues a business opportunity out of fear, there
is little likelihood of success.   Each failure simply leads to the next
adventure, and the potential for success.  Resilience of spirit is the
key.

Some of the most successful enterpreneurs I have known were people
who lacked the formal education to realize that they could not succeed.
Sometimes, we let our own knowledge get in the way of being what
we could be.

Sorry for the platitudes.

Richard Riehle

                        "For much wisdom is much grief,
                          And he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow"
                                                        Ecclesiastes.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Marin David Condic]

Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3E41E35B.8E52C580@adaworks.com...
> Marin David Condic wrote:
>
> Wrong.  The last thing you want is outside money.   Stay away from Venture
> Capitalists.  They will destroy your product, your will, your self-esteem,
> and everything you loved about what you were doing.
>

Had a bad experience with a venture capitalist? :-)

Well, obviously, the Golden Rule applies: "He who has the gold makes the
rules" Once you take someone's money for something, they're going to want to
control what you do with it. (This is especially true of the government - so
it doesn't get better for the DoD contractors.) This may or may not be a bad
thing, depending on what one's objective are. And in the end, businesses
tend to have to go find investors of one form or another, so you're always
going to have that potential.

But consider that one might go build a prototype program for something as a
"Concept Demonstrator" and you show that to potential investors. If they
like the idea, they're not going to give a rip about what language it was
written in nor how you go about building it. They're only interest is going
to be how to get it to market quickly and how to get it to sell well so they
can start making truckloads of money. In this respect they can be helpful to
your average geek who has no experience with those issues.

They may want to take your product or your company down a path you don't
want to go and they'll have the leverage to do that, so if your objective in
life is to sell *this* product and run *this* company, yes, they can ruin
your plans. OTOH, if the thing was at all successful, you'll almost
certainly walk away from it with a big chunk of money in your hands and then
you can go out and get another good idea, fund it yourself and go have fun
running *that* company with *that* product. So a venture capitalist or two
might be a useful thing, depending on one's goals and perspective.




> Software has the benefit of being a low resource product.  One or two
> people can build a product in a short time.   This is one place where some
> of the Agile Development ideas can benefit a couple of people with a
> great idea.   If you have a corporate sponsor who will let you share in
> the harvest, good.  But find a sponsor who has the same vision you have
> of the final product.
>
Software certainly has a plus side for startup ventures. A handful of guys
with PCs can go out and build something with little more than sweat equity.
But that same benefit is also a trouble spot. Software is mostly development
labor rather than manufacturing, so a) those who can afford lots of labor
can build bigger, better products more quickly and b) almost anybody can
play the game so if your great idea starts to sell well, you'll have lots of
competition. (Or as Micro$oft is finding out, some group of geeks who don't
like you very much may just write one and *give* it away in order to spite
you. :-)

As for corporate sponsorship - that gets to be as problematic as venture
capitalists. It would take a pretty stupid corporation to fund the
development of some product on a cost-plus basis and then not demand some
kind of data rights to whatever was ultimately produced. (I do know of one
case where this was done - but that's it - one case. And yes, they were/are
stupid.) Depending on the product, you might find someone to totally pay for
the development (in which case there are probably *very* few other customers
and the original company is going to own you as a subsidiary) or you might
find someone who will partially fund it or supply other resources (domain
knowledge, technical support, equipment, etc.) in exchange for something
from you. If you want to get, you've got to give, eh?


> A good model to emulate is that of the founder's of Quicken products.
Check
> out how they built their company.   Even Bill Gates story includes some
> positive lessons, if one overlooks  the devious methods he sometimes
> employs to get results.
>
Don't know anything about it, but obviously Quicken is a big player in
off-the-shelf accounting software. They must have done *something* right.
However, personally, I would not want to go into the "off-the-shelf" market
because you're going up against established players with lots more money
than you have. Maybe you can beat them, but you'd better have one heck of a
good idea how to make that mousetrap better than they do.

>
> Some of the most successful enterpreneurs I have known were people
> who lacked the formal education to realize that they could not succeed.
> Sometimes, we let our own knowledge get in the way of being what
> we could be.
>
People spend more time shooting themselves in the foot than they do getting
trampled by life. Toss a good idea at most folks and they'll *immediately*
start dreaming up the million and one ways that it absolutely cannot work.
If they spent the same energy thinking up ways to get it to work, they might
discover lots more possibilities and have lots more success. Not that you
don't have to consider what the pitfalls might be - but approaching them
with an attitude of "This is a good idea - how do we shepard it around the
pitfalls?" will get one a lot farther in life. Most of it is mental
attitude.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:

> Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
> news:3E41E35B.8E52C580@adaworks.com...
> > Marin David Condic wrote:
> >
> > Wrong.  The last thing you want is outside money.   Stay away from Venture
> > Capitalists.  They will destroy your product, your will, your self-esteem,
> > and everything you loved about what you were doing.
> >
> 
> Had a bad experience with a venture capitalist? :-)
> 
> Well, obviously, the Golden Rule applies: "He who has the gold makes the
> rules" Once you take someone's money for something, they're going to want to
> control what you do with it. (This is especially true of the government - so
> it doesn't get better for the DoD contractors.) This may or may not be a bad
> thing, depending on what one's objective are. And in the end, businesses
> tend to have to go find investors of one form or another, so you're always
> going to have that potential.
> 
> But consider that one might go build a prototype program for something as a
> "Concept Demonstrator" and you show that to potential investors. If they
> like the idea, they're not going to give a rip about what language it was
> written in nor how you go about building it. They're only interest is going
> to be how to get it to market quickly and how to get it to sell well so they
> can start making truckloads of money. In this respect they can be helpful to
> your average geek who has no experience with those issues.
> 
> They may want to take your product or your company down a path you don't
> want to go and they'll have the leverage to do that, so if your objective in
> life is to sell *this* product and run *this* company, yes, they can ruin
> your plans. OTOH, if the thing was at all successful, you'll almost
> certainly walk away from it with a big chunk of money in your hands and then
> you can go out and get another good idea, fund it yourself and go have fun
> running *that* company with *that* product. So a venture capitalist or two
> might be a useful thing, depending on one's goals and perspective.
> 

The problem with maximizing the gains, which is probably the reason
the vultures would like to change your plans, is that you also
maximize the risks. This does not matter too much to the venture
capitalists, because they spread their risk, one company in ten
getting a real success is enough for them. 

Remember, their goal is not to maximize the probability of you getting a profit.

And yes, *I have* bad experiences with venture capitalists.

-- 
Ole-Hj. Kristensen

******************************************************************************
* You cannot consistently believe this sentence.
******************************************************************************

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Marin David Condic]

Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <oleh@vlinux.voxelvision.no> wrote in message
news:7vsmv0h24f.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no...
>
> The problem with maximizing the gains, which is probably the reason
> the vultures would like to change your plans, is that you also
> maximize the risks. This does not matter too much to the venture
> capitalists, because they spread their risk, one company in ten
> getting a real success is enough for them.
>
Agreed, but a couple of points: Even a venture capitalist doesn't want to
see the business fail. Sure they may go for greater risk, but they still
have a large amount of money invested in success and they want to protect
that too, so they aren't necessarily out to destroy what you are trying to
create.

Also, just a general rule of business - pick your partners very carefully
and get a lawyer. This is true if you've got a venture going with your best
buddy or with Engulf & Devour Venture Capital, Inc. In many respects, its
better to go into business with someone you *don't* have a trusting
relationship with - nothing gets assumed and you live by what's written down
in the contract.

Venture capitalists also come in many flavors - the more "formal" type that
have corporations that basically fund ventures, build them up and sell them
off and then you have the type where you simply have a rich guy looking for
something to put some money in. Even going to the bank for a loan is a kind
of "venture capital" in that they have some money at risk and will insist on
various safeguards, etc, that can be constraining on your business.


> Remember, their goal is not to maximize the probability of you getting a
profit.
>
Agreed. In business (as often in life) people's interests are going to be
different. What I hope to achieve is not going to be in lockstep with what
you hope to achieeve, so always beware when working with someone else in
risky endeavors and make sure you do the best you can to understand the
other guy's motivation.


> And yes, *I have* bad experiences with venture capitalists.
>
Lots of people have worked for companies that were taken over or otherwise
run by venture capitalists - myself included - and seen that they can easily
get ruthless in trying to make a profit. One wants to be very careful about
who one crawls into bed with.

My point was not really to make a case for going to venture capitalists. My
point was to indicate that Ada is going to be better promoted by those with
an interest in it if they start successful businesses that use Ada to build
their end products. How one gets the money to make that work is a very open
ended question. Personally, I've got some ideas for things I think could
make a good business and I'd like to find ways of making that work out. That
means you've got to leave the door open to all different sorts of paths to
make something grow - including possibly venture capitalists. But whether
you go to a venture capitalist or some large corporation that wants an end
product or your rich old uncle or the bank or even your prospective
associates, you've got to do some ground work to identify a market and do
some research and have a business plan that indicates a high probability of
success or you're just going to flounder.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[P S Norby]

"Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3E41E35B.8E52C580@adaworks.com...



> It Ada works for you, you might want to keep it a secret.  I know
> at least one company that refuses to let anyone know it is using
> Ada, even though they are happy with it and it is contributing to
> their success.
>

So how does this "stealth" company recruit Ada personnel?  And how do Ada
people find the company?

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Richard Riehle]

P S Norby wrote:

> "Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
> news:3E41E35B.8E52C580@adaworks.com...
>
> > It Ada works for you, you might want to keep it a secret.  I know
> > at least one company that refuses to let anyone know it is using
> > Ada, even though they are happy with it and it is contributing to
> > their success.
> >
>
> So how does this "stealth" company recruit Ada personnel?  And how do Ada
> people find the company?

I done one seminar for them.  All the rest, as far as I can tell, is done
within
their own organization.   I am not allowed to discuss the details.

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[AG]

"P S Norby" <psnorby@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U4D0a.16155$HN5.43442@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
> news:3E41E35B.8E52C580@adaworks.com...
>
>
>
> > It Ada works for you, you might want to keep it a secret.  I know
> > at least one company that refuses to let anyone know it is using
> > Ada, even though they are happy with it and it is contributing to
> > their success.
> >
>
> So how does this "stealth" company recruit Ada personnel?  And how do Ada
> people find the company?
>

Well, one way that I know of is: The company would advertise for, say,
C++ programmers (*not* stressing the language) plus require a wide
range of experience in other languages and general programming/SE
expertise. During the interview, if you make it that far, you may get asked
what other languages you actually know and, if you mention Ada (or
any other not too popular language for that matter) asked to prove it ...

RE: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Robert C. Leif]

Richard et al.
Firstly, Newport Instruments is a user of Ada technology, rather than an Ada
company. However as both a small user and formally the corporate fellow of a
large company, which created a medical device in Ada, I have my own
perspective on the Ada market. 
My approach to medical devices is best served by using XForms as the basis
for the GUI and data presentation. An Ada interface to XForms would allow
for a very simple means to exchange data. I also reported at SIGAda 02 on
the creation of two Ada packages to match XML data-types. The first is a
generic bounded string with character set and the second is ECMA numeric
names in both XML and Ada. This is all in preparation for my next medical
device. 
Unfortunately, the Ada tool vendors have been slow to see where the market
is going. I believe that the use of Ada would be significantly facilitated
by either the addition of Ada functionality to tools, such as Microsoft
Visual Studio, XMLSpy, or Tidy; or the converse, extending present Ada tools
to XML. For instance, the error messages for XMLSpy are pathetic compared
with GNAT and other Ada compilers. Ada tools could be extended to the
development and validation of XML schema. Ada GUI tools should use XML
languages and constructs, as opposed to Microsoft or Linux specific
(resource) files or constructs for screen and output creation. Since these
tools would be dual use including a very hot market, they should be
profitable.
Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Riehle [mailto:richard@adaworks.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:27 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Besides, CASE tools and other programming aids are a tough market. There's
a
> highly elastic demand and a small number of people (with respect to more
> general software) who can actually make use of the end product. It would
be
> far better to pick some more general industry (like auto repair shops or
> beauty parlors or something "professional" like doctors or lawyers) and
> research what they'd potentially be able to use to automate their business

This is a sensible approach.   There is very little money in developing yet
more tools for creating software.  And that money is being drained away
by the open-source movement.

> Develop something for a narrower industry that has a large software
> component and some other sort of value-added product (like an integrated
> cash register or some on-line service - that's where you make the *real*
> money) and you've got something where the big players aren't going to
drive
> you out of the market.

This is called  a "vertical marketing" approach.  Develop expertise in a
particular
industry, learn its demands, its needs, and its way of doing business.
Then,
build
a product that is easier to use, more reliable, and more closely mapped to
the
way that industry does business.   Keep the product current as the
technology
advances.   Keep the code portable for variations in operating system
availability.
Robert Lief was on the right track with his medical equipment in Ada
approach.
I'm not sure whether he ever got very far with it.

I have some friends in Silicon Valley who specialize in developing software
for small medical devices on the I-8051.  They are experts at this after
many
years of doing it.  They quietly make money, don't have any intention of
going
public, love what they do, and have a clientele of satisfied and repeating
business.

Ada, although not hosted on the I-8051, could be used to serve a similar
market.  A lot of lab equipment needs larger processors now.    There are
robotic assemby lines that need to run on larger processors.  When one looks
around carefully, it seems there is end to the opportunity for creating new
software to upgrade what is already in place, and to sieze the market with
reliable software in embedded industrial applications.

The problem is that too many people with Ada expertise are not of an
entrepreneurial bent.   Long years in doing software by contract has
stunted their ability to do anything except on-spec.   The large users
of Ada such as Lockheed, CSC, Raytheon, etc., simply don't have
the kind of management that understands free-market risk-taking.  I
recall a conversation with one high-ranking official of one of the
large DoD software developers.  He asked what kind of commercial
opportunities I saw for Ada.   I listed several.  His reply astonished
me.  "But who will fund it?"    My answer, stunned him.  "No one.
You need to fund it yourself once you determine there is a market."

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Alfred Hilscher]

Wes Groleau schrieb:
> 
> Maybe in the meantime, I'll find the time to
> invent one of those "killer apps with Ada inside"
> that we keep talking about here.

I'm still missing Ada applications at all (in the public). I never 
heard about a CD-burning app in Ada, nor of an .wav or .bmp manipulation
app, nor something else (except GNAT and GVD). If there is not the _one_
killer app, is this a reason for not having _anything_ in Ada?

BTW, I'm searching a new job since last july. I've got some offers - all
in the automotive area. They all use C. When I asked them whether they
would switch to Ada they said "Yes, if there are good tools". (They work
with HC12/8051/C166)

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3E3C0696.BBA4D359@t-online.de>, Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@t-online.de> writes:

> I'm still missing Ada applications at all (in the public). I never 
> heard about a CD-burning app in Ada, nor of an .wav or .bmp manipulation
> app, nor something else (except GNAT and GVD). If there is not the _one_
> killer app, is this a reason for not having _anything_ in Ada?

Please don't confuse not having Open Source software for a given domain
written in Ada with not having any software for that domain written in Ada.

	http://www.ljk.com/ljk/ljk_cdrom.html

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Alfred Hilscher]

Larry Kilgallen schrieb:
> 
> Please don't confuse not having Open Source software for a given domain
> written in Ada with not having any software for that domain written in Ada.
> 
>         http://www.ljk.com/ljk/ljk_cdrom.html

OK, accepted. But I think people should at least given a hint that this
sw is in Ada, otherwise people assume it is C. And then they say/think:
"Well everyone only use C, so I do, too". Ada should be more visible,
not neccessary as source, but at least in the doc.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Jan-Uwe Finck]

Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> I'm still missing Ada applications at all (in the public). I never 
> heard about a CD-burning app in Ada, nor of an .wav or .bmp manipulation
> app, nor something else (except GNAT and GVD). If there is not the _one_
> killer app, is this a reason for not having _anything_ in Ada?

Well, at least a CD-burning software exists. although not under
the usual OS', but under Risc OS (http://www.riscos.com and .org)
called CDBurn (http://www.huber-net.de/cdburn.htm),
the author mentions his use of Ada on his website here
(http://www.huber-net.de/ada.htm), unfortunately in german.  

Yes, people use Ada.
This may be a little comfort, but there is one.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Steffen Huber]

Jan-Uwe Finck wrote:
> 
> Alfred Hilscher <Alfred.Hilscher@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> > I'm still missing Ada applications at all (in the public). I never
> > heard about a CD-burning app in Ada, nor of an .wav or .bmp manipulation
> > app, nor something else (except GNAT and GVD). If there is not the _one_
> > killer app, is this a reason for not having _anything_ in Ada?
> 
> Well, at least a CD-burning software exists. although not under
> the usual OS', but under Risc OS (http://www.riscos.com and .org)
> called CDBurn (http://www.huber-net.de/cdburn.htm),

Thanks for your plug, however I fear that there will be very few people who
have even heard if RISC OS in this newsgroup.

> the author mentions his use of Ada on his website here
> (http://www.huber-net.de/ada.htm), unfortunately in german.

English variant available at http://www.huber-net.de/ada_e.htm

However, it is quite old and outdated now. So much work to do, so
little time.

[snip]

Stefen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Steffen Huber]

Alfred Hilscher wrote:
> 
> Wes Groleau schrieb:
> >
> > Maybe in the meantime, I'll find the time to
> > invent one of those "killer apps with Ada inside"
> > that we keep talking about here.
> 
> I'm still missing Ada applications at all (in the public). I never
> heard about a CD-burning app in Ada,

You have not looked hard enough ;-)

I have written one, called CDBurn. For more information, look at
http://www.huber-net.de/cdburn.htm

However, unless you are lucky enough to run RISC OS, it
makes little sense to buy it ;-)

[snip]

Steffen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Alfred Hilscher]

Steffen Huber schrieb:
> 
> 
> You have not looked hard enough ;-)

Well, I have. I've seen your site month ago. But - RiscOS is a really
small market. I personally meant WinXY, Linux or at least OS/2. 

> I have written one, called CDBurn. For more information, look at
> http://www.huber-net.de/cdburn.htm

Fine, will you port it to others OS's? 
 
> However, unless you are lucky enough to run RISC OS, it
> makes little sense to buy it ;-)


True :-(

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Steffen Huber]

Alfred Hilscher wrote:
> Steffen Huber schrieb:
> > You have not looked hard enough ;-)
> 
> Well, I have. I've seen your site month ago. But - RiscOS is a really
> small market.

RiscOS is an even smaller market than RISC OS ;-)

> I personally meant WinXY, Linux or at least OS/2.

Hmmm, I think if you count active end users, RISC OS will probably turn out
to be more popular than OS/2.

> > I have written one, called CDBurn. For more information, look at
> > http://www.huber-net.de/cdburn.htm
> 
> Fine, will you port it to others OS's?

The whole thing: unlikely. There is very little that CDBurn can do that
would make it better than the competition - with the exception of the user
interface, but its niceness is heavily bound to RISC OS' way of operation.

The only part that would possibly make sense is the whole ISO/Joliet
image creation stuff. Mainly because this would also port the RISC OS
filer to Windows, and most of the software available on Windows is a lot
less flexible when it comes to filename conventions etc.

Anyway, I am currently happy supporting the few thousand CDBurn users on
RISC OS, and it is likely that CDBurn will morph into DVDBurn in the
future. If I am ever getting bored, I will think about a port.

Steffen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> to find a new line of work.

I'm sorry. I hope things go well for you.

> C/C++ is unacceptable

It shouldn't be. If you became a good C++ programmer
(as opposed to a mediocre one, or a beginner), I think
you would find it reasonably straightforward and enjoyable
to get your work done. As an Ada programmer, you are
accustomed to thinking of C++ according to its flaws.
When you approach it from its strengths, it's really
not that difficult to produce code that is elegant
and correct.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> to get your work done. As an Ada programmer, you are
> accustomed to thinking of C++ according to its flaws.
> When you approach it from its strengths, it's really
> not that difficult to produce code that is elegant
> and correct.

*Boggle*


-- 
Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", Isaac Asimov

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> *Boggle*

Yeah. Whatever.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Marin David Condic]

I've seen examples of decent code in C++. I've also seen horrible examples
of obfuscated, cryptic, impossible code in C++. Generally, you don't get to
work on systems from bottom-dead-center and make them in your own image and
likeness. You usually have to deal with a bunch of historic crap. Hence, I
can understand the reluctance to get involved in it.

OTOH, a job is one of those things that usually you can shape and mold into
what you want it to be, so even if the language isn't one's cup of tea,
there are usually enough other aspects to concentrate on that make it
acceptable.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1044035919.383669@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> > C/C++ is unacceptable
>
> It shouldn't be. If you became a good C++ programmer
> (as opposed to a mediocre one, or a beginner), I think
> you would find it reasonably straightforward and enjoyable
> to get your work done. As an Ada programmer, you are
> accustomed to thinking of C++ according to its flaws.
> When you approach it from its strengths, it's really
> not that difficult to produce code that is elegant
> and correct.
>

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[David Marceau]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
> Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> to find a new line of work.
> 
> C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
> part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
> any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!
> 
> I'll still peek in here once in a while....
Mr. Groleau,

I have seen many of your postings in here.  I do believe that you are a
competent programmer that has seen some difficult times at work recently
as most people in the industry.

I would guess that your personal feelings have been hurt by all this and
especially because from what I understand you also lost your job.

IMHO you must be just feeling bad right now.  I think after thinking
about it for a while you'll see that you just did a brain fart and don't
mean it.  You care about Ada/building working code too much to just up
and go away from it.  Then again I may be wrong and it may really be
time for you to move on.  

That's what I said about programming a few years ago after having gone
through a burn out.  Actually I'm pretty sure coding is what I was
supposed to do with my life and from what I can see you like this stuff
too much.  

I'll bet you'll be back coding ada after some much needed rest teaching
Spanish.  Not to get too existential but "Follow your heart" :)  This
might mean relocating at a later date.

Once you do decide to relocate, I've seen some ada jobs posted around
EASTERN U.S., BELGIUM, SWITZERLAND, and ENGLAND.  Just recently one
opened up in OTTAWA CANADA(Christine Hamilton <chamilton@i4c.ca>) which
means there are ADA JOBS floating around.
http://www.adapower.com/
http://www.adaic.org/      -- some job listings
http://www.acm.org/sigada/
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~dirk/ada-belgium/     -- some job listings
-- for many places where Ada is being used and where you might post your
cv:
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html
One other place you might target sending your cv would be to all the
participants of a convention recently mentioned in Crosstalk:
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2003/02/

Also check out TNI Europe http://www.tni-world.com/how_to_find_us.asp
This company is a HOOD METHODOLOGY tool builder generating code for Ada
and are always looking for more senior ada programmers.
Congleton(Cheshire, England) is a beautiful place with lots of
history(ancient roman relics found here/huguenots and catholic history) 
and the employer(Mr. Tony Elliston <tony.elliston@tni-europe.com>)
treats his employees well.

Sant� bonheur,(I wish you health and happiness,)
David Marceau

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[John R. Strohm]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2971 bytes --]

David, how easy or difficult is it for a U.S. citizen to get a work permit
for Belgium or Switzerland?  Last I heard, it was for all practical purposes
impossible in the United Kingdom.

"David Marceau" <davidmarceau@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3E3AE20D.AAA210DE@sympatico.ca...
> Wes Groleau wrote:
> >
> > Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> > to find a new line of work.
> >
> > C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
> > part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
> > any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!
> >
> > I'll still peek in here once in a while....
> Mr. Groleau,
>
> I have seen many of your postings in here.  I do believe that you are a
> competent programmer that has seen some difficult times at work recently
> as most people in the industry.
>
> I would guess that your personal feelings have been hurt by all this and
> especially because from what I understand you also lost your job.
>
> IMHO you must be just feeling bad right now.  I think after thinking
> about it for a while you'll see that you just did a brain fart and don't
> mean it.  You care about Ada/building working code too much to just up
> and go away from it.  Then again I may be wrong and it may really be
> time for you to move on.
>
> That's what I said about programming a few years ago after having gone
> through a burn out.  Actually I'm pretty sure coding is what I was
> supposed to do with my life and from what I can see you like this stuff
> too much.
>
> I'll bet you'll be back coding ada after some much needed rest teaching
> Spanish.  Not to get too existential but "Follow your heart" :)  This
> might mean relocating at a later date.
>
> Once you do decide to relocate, I've seen some ada jobs posted around
> EASTERN U.S., BELGIUM, SWITZERLAND, and ENGLAND.  Just recently one
> opened up in OTTAWA CANADA(Christine Hamilton <chamilton@i4c.ca>) which
> means there are ADA JOBS floating around.
> http://www.adapower.com/
> http://www.adaic.org/      -- some job listings
> http://www.acm.org/sigada/
> http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~dirk/ada-belgium/     -- some job listings
> -- for many places where Ada is being used and where you might post your
> cv:
> http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html
> One other place you might target sending your cv would be to all the
> participants of a convention recently mentioned in Crosstalk:
> http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2003/02/
>
> Also check out TNI Europe http://www.tni-world.com/how_to_find_us.asp
> This company is a HOOD METHODOLOGY tool builder generating code for Ada
> and are always looking for more senior ada programmers.
> Congleton(Cheshire, England) is a beautiful place with lots of
> history(ancient roman relics found here/huguenots and catholic history)
> and the employer(Mr. Tony Elliston <tony.elliston@tni-europe.com>)
> treats his employees well.
>
> Sant� bonheur,(I wish you health and happiness,)
> David Marceau

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[David Marceau]

"John R. Strohm" wrote:
> 
> David, how easy or difficult is it for a U.S. citizen to get a work permit
> for Belgium or Switzerland?  Last I heard, it was for all practical purposes
> impossible in the United Kingdom.
If the employer is interested in you, the employer can get the work
permit done because he is sponsoring you and because you have special
skills he is looking for at the wage that he can afford.  In fact you
are right if no employer wants to sponsor you, you won't easily be able
to work in England.  As it stands I would assume the same in EC
countries also.

Another method employers use to have you work in another country is if
you are Canadian and if the potential employer is a multi-national
company and have an address both in Canada, and elsewhere(UK, US or the
rest of EC), then they just pay you in Canada, but you are actually on
location in wherever.  I'm no expert but this has been my limited
experience in all this.  It may not give you permanent residency but at
least you'll be working.

BTW Thales place an Ada job posting in Ottawa Citizen Newspaper in
Canada today!  BTW I have submitted my cv there also and may the best
coder get the job :)  If we're lucky they may hire all the ada coders
they can get their hands on.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
David Marceau

> 
> "David Marceau" <davidmarceau@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3E3AE20D.AAA210DE@sympatico.ca...
> > Wes Groleau wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> > > to find a new line of work.
> > >
> > > C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
> > > part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
> > > any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!
> > >
> > > I'll still peek in here once in a while....
> > Mr. Groleau,
> >
> > I have seen many of your postings in here.  I do believe that you are a
> > competent programmer that has seen some difficult times at work recently
> > as most people in the industry.
> >
> > I would guess that your personal feelings have been hurt by all this and
> > especially because from what I understand you also lost your job.
> >
> > IMHO you must be just feeling bad right now.  I think after thinking
> > about it for a while you'll see that you just did a brain fart and don't
> > mean it.  You care about Ada/building working code too much to just up
> > and go away from it.  Then again I may be wrong and it may really be
> > time for you to move on.
> >
> > That's what I said about programming a few years ago after having gone
> > through a burn out.  Actually I'm pretty sure coding is what I was
> > supposed to do with my life and from what I can see you like this stuff
> > too much.
> >
> > I'll bet you'll be back coding ada after some much needed rest teaching
> > Spanish.  Not to get too existential but "Follow your heart" :)  This
> > might mean relocating at a later date.
> >
> > Once you do decide to relocate, I've seen some ada jobs posted around
> > EASTERN U.S., BELGIUM, SWITZERLAND, and ENGLAND.  Just recently one
> > opened up in OTTAWA CANADA(Christine Hamilton <chamilton@i4c.ca>) which
> > means there are ADA JOBS floating around.
> > http://www.adapower.com/
> > http://www.adaic.org/      -- some job listings
> > http://www.acm.org/sigada/
> > http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~dirk/ada-belgium/     -- some job listings
> > -- for many places where Ada is being used and where you might post your
> > cv:
> > http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html
> > One other place you might target sending your cv would be to all the
> > participants of a convention recently mentioned in Crosstalk:
> > http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2003/02/
> >
> > Also check out TNI Europe http://www.tni-world.com/how_to_find_us.asp
> > This company is a HOOD METHODOLOGY tool builder generating code for Ada
> > and are always looking for more senior ada programmers.
> > Congleton(Cheshire, England) is a beautiful place with lots of
> > history(ancient roman relics found here/huguenots and catholic history)
> > and the employer(Mr. Tony Elliston <tony.elliston@tni-europe.com>)
> > treats his employees well.
> >
> > Sant� bonheur,(I wish you health and happiness,)
> > David Marceau

Ada job opportunity posted at THALES in Ottawa Citizen Today

[David Marceau]

The Ottawa Citizen Web site doesn't display it, nor does the THALE GROUP
web site(www.thalesgroup.com)
display it but it's in Today's printed edition of the "OTTAWA Citizen"
Newspaper.

I would imagine it should have been listed here but it isn't:
http://www.thales-systems.ca/careers/jobs.htm
Notice the web site is the Canadian web site and the job is in Ottawa it
seems.

One thing to note though in the printed edition of the "OTTAWA Citizen"
today, it did say to send your cv to hr@ca.thalesgroup.com.
I can't get more clear than that.

Good luck to anyone interested.

Cheers,
David Marceau

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Vinzent Hoefler]

"John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net> wrote:

>David, how easy or difficult is it for a U.S. citizen to get a work permit
>for Belgium or Switzerland?

Good question, probably it is not very easy, at least in Switzerland.
It is *much* easier for EU-citizens and most Job-offers in Switzerland
require that you already have a work permit, so probably you should
find an employer that does not mind to try to get yours. Well, if the
company is really interested in you, they probably will do it for you,
but it might be hard to find such one. Especially if you want an
Ada-Job, that are hard to find already.

The problem in the US is still harder the other way around: The
security clearance level needed at NIF required that you are an
US-citizen. Bad luck, I'm already out of game. ;-)
To be able to play with an 18MJ-laser sounded really cool. ;->


Vinzent.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Preben Randhol]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!
> 
> I'll still peek in here once in a while....

Hope you can still do Ada on your spare time. Would like to see more
software and bindings from you!

I'll continue my Glosa program (vocabulary builder) and when GtkAda 2.0
is finally available for windows too it can be useful for
teaching Spanish :-)

-- 
Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", Isaac Asimov

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Richard Riehle]

Wes Groleau wrote:

> Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> to find a new line of work.

Yet even more stupid decision-making at Raytheon?

> C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
> part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
> any more.

Yes, well the decision-makers choose C++, not
because it is technologically a better option, but
for reasons that have little to with reliability, productivity,
or safety.   As our contractors build more and more
software with C++, we can expect more and more software
errors over the coming years.    I wish this were not the
case, but given the brittleness of C++,  is inevitable.

I realize the Mr. H. Rosen will disagree with this viewpoint.
So be it.   The sign on my office door continues to read,

               "C++ is its own virus"

Those who visit my office usually agree with that assessment.

Richad Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> I realize the Mr. H. Rosen will disagree with this viewpoint.

On this day, I find it hard to summon much energy for a language war.
I know *I* can write reasonably good software in C++. When we have
errors, it's due to problems in logic, not problems in the language.
But anyway, fine. Don't program in C++, do what you want.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Richard Riehle wrote:
> 
>> I realize the Mr. H. Rosen will disagree with this viewpoint.
> 
> 
> On this day, I find it hard to summon much energy for a language war.
> I know *I* can write reasonably good software in C++. When we have
> errors, it's due to problems in logic, not problems in the language.
> But anyway, fine. Don't program in C++, do what you want.

I should resist the temptation but... the same argument can be
made for perl, FORTRAN and assembly language programming ;-)

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

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> I should resist the temptation but... the same argument can be
> made for perl, FORTRAN and assembly language programming ;-)

And correctly so. "It is a poof craftsman who blames his tools."
I wish he was still around here, because I think Robert Dewar is
a prime exemplar of this philosophy, having written a fine COBOL
compiler in COBOL, just for example. And as he also said, writing
in assembly language, along with a data structure designed to take
advantage of the particulars of the instruction set, gives you a
program which can run rings around anything you can do in a higher
level language.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1044294578.391198@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> > I should resist the temptation but... the same argument can be
> > made for perl, FORTRAN and assembly language programming ;-)
>
> And correctly so. "It is a poof craftsman who blames his tools."

Interesting take on a classic statement, but unfortunately a poor one since
correct tool choice has real ramifications.  Let's take a simple example.  I
needed to build a 4'x2'x4' mew for my wife.  Now I am not a great carpenter,
but the few pieces I do make are functional.  Unfortunately, the only tools
I had at the moment were silversmithing tools and a screwdriver.  I
constructed the mew with a jeweler's saw, a spring drill, a screwdriver, a
pencil, and an understanding of geometry to get the proportions right.
Unfortunately it took an entire day to build.  If I would have had a saw
horse, a backsaw, a power screwdriver/drill, and a tape measure, I would
have completed the job in about an hour.  So as you can see the problem was
inappropriate tools for the job.  Am I blaming the tools?  Yes and no since
I have identified the tools as the source of the problem, but I have also
acknowledge that the tools were not appropriate for the job at hand.

> I wish he was still around here, because I think Robert Dewar is
> a prime exemplar of this philosophy, having written a fine COBOL
> compiler in COBOL, just for example. And as he also said, writing
> in assembly language, along with a data structure designed to take
> advantage of the particulars of the instruction set, gives you a
> program which can run rings around anything you can do in a higher
> level language.

I believe Dr. Dewar is a proponent of "the right tool" philosophy.
Silversmithing tools are great when you want to make rings, necklaces, and
forks. ;)

-CRM

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> the tools were not appropriate for the job at hand

Fine, but the OP seemed to be saying that Perl, Fortran,
and assembly are *never* appropriate. That's not correct
even now, and is certainly anachronistic.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
>> the tools were not appropriate for the job at hand
> 
> Fine, but the OP seemed to be saying that Perl, Fortran,
> and assembly are *never* appropriate. That's not correct
> even now, and is certainly anachronistic.

In fairness "never" is always a "strong" statement, and I
didn't really say that. ;-)

However, I'll confess that I don't believe that there are many
appropriate "production level" applications that should _today_
be written in Perl, FORTRAN or assembly language. Sure, device
drivers are still appropriate, and for small segments of an
operating system where squeezing the last byte out of the code
is important (like a boot sector program segment).

Perl is OK for a quick and dirty "hack something together"
to perform a one time job. Perl is absolutely the wrong
language to use if someone at a later point in time, and
especially a _different_ someone, is stuck with maintaining
it (it is IMHO, a write-once, "hope you don't have to read
it again" language).  I've also witnessed endless problems with
module version/compatibilities problems, on hosts where some
people felt Perl was appropriate for production.

FORTRAN IMO, is OK for legacy stuff that is already in that
language (tested and trusted), with the usual caveat that it
depends on the application (it _may_ never be good enough for
space shuttles, and other critical stuff).

This is a long winded way of simply saying, I don't believe
that there are many applications for those inferior tools
today. I also believe that better tools exist (Ada95), and
that too many people jump on the "efficiency bandwagon"
instead (C/C++). Efficiency becomes less important every
year that new CPUs advance in speed.

OTOH, _reliability_ becomes increasingly important for general
purpose computing as we try to build upon a foundation. Its
hard to build on a shakey one. ;-)

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

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1044294578.391198@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> And correctly so. "It is a poof craftsman who blames his tools."
> I wish he was still around here, because I think Robert Dewar is
> a prime exemplar of this philosophy, having written a fine COBOL
> compiler in COBOL, just for example.

To be fair to Robert Dewar, he has always been a ardent defender of COBOL as
a good tool for its intended domain. Granted, COBOL is an uncommon choice
for writing a compiler, but there is one tremendous advantage to a
self-compiled compiler: it demonstrates that the compiler works for at least
one large project!

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> To be fair to Robert Dewar

Just to be clear, I was praising him, not criticizing him.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Kevin Cline]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<3E3EA605.60705@cogeco.ca>...
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > Richard Riehle wrote:
> > 
> >> I realize the Mr. H. Rosen will disagree with this viewpoint.
> > 
> > 
> > On this day, I find it hard to summon much energy for a language war.
> > I know *I* can write reasonably good software in C++. When we have
> > errors, it's due to problems in logic, not problems in the language.
> > But anyway, fine. Don't program in C++, do what you want.
> 
> I should resist the temptation but... the same argument can be
> made for perl, FORTRAN and assembly language programming ;-)

When you want a program finished today you can't do much better
than Perl.  I don't have much sympathy for the OP's position on
programming languages.  This month I had to learn Visual Basic.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Kevin Cline wrote:
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<3E3EA605.60705@cogeco.ca>...
>>Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>>Richard Riehle wrote:
>>>>I realize the Mr. H. Rosen will disagree with this viewpoint.
>>>
>>>On this day, I find it hard to summon much energy for a language war.
>>>I know *I* can write reasonably good software in C++. When we have
>>>errors, it's due to problems in logic, not problems in the language.
>>>But anyway, fine. Don't program in C++, do what you want.
>>
>>I should resist the temptation but... the same argument can be
>>made for perl, FORTRAN and assembly language programming ;-)
> 
> When you want a program finished today you can't do much better
> than Perl.  I don't have much sympathy for the OP's position on
> programming languages.  This month I had to learn Visual Basic.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's quite alright-- _you_ have my full sympathy! ;-)

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

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Karel Miklav]

Kevin Cline wrote:
> When you want a program finished today you can't do much better
> than Perl.  I don't have much sympathy for the OP's position on
> programming languages.  This month I had to learn Visual Basic.

Me too, some time ago. I just wish I could say: this month, I had to 
learn Ada95 :)) And please don't misunderstand me here, I'm talking 
about the learning curve.

Regards,
Karel Miklav

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Richard Riehle]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Richard Riehle wrote:
> > I realize the Mr. H. Rosen will disagree with this viewpoint.
>
> On this day, I find it hard to summon much energy for a language war.
> I know *I* can write reasonably good software in C++. When we have
> errors, it's due to problems in logic, not problems in the language.
> But anyway, fine. Don't program in C++, do what you want.

Ah, and there's the issue.   It is not that I want do program in Ada
instead
of something else.   If I had my druthers, I'd probably use Smalltalk.
The
issue is not my preference, it is about choosing the correct tool for the

job to be done.

It is also not about whether someone who is an expert using a particular
set of tools can do the job better than someone who is not an expert.
During
a trip to Japan, I watched an expert in Japanese Joinery create the
components
for a Temple using only hand tools, his keen eye, and his many years of
experience.   Each component fit together with a perfection few others
could achieve, even with more years of experience.   This is an example
of craftsmanship that few could match.

In my view, C++ is too prone to errors, even when used by experienced
craftspersons.   Those with the skill of the Japanese Joinery expert
cited
in the above paragraph are likely to produce defect-free code.   We
cannot
depend on that level of expertise.  It is rare.  It is unpredictable. It
is
not easily confirmed.   The more C++ code I see, and the more programmers

I see trying to use it, in particular, for weapon-systems, the more
concerned
I have become about the potential for failure due to unpredictable
behavior
in the resulting code.   It is so easy to compile a C++ program that
behaves
strangely after executing for some unspecified period of time.

My preference for Ada is not made out of ignorance of the other options.
It is made because I have discovered that defect-free software is best
created when the creational tools assist in preventing defects.   At
present, it is not a matter of _can_ we create defect-free software in
C++.  We certainly can.   It is, rather, what is the probability of the
code being defect-free in C++ and in Ada.   In my view, there is
a greater likelihood of producing defect-free software in Ada than
in C++.

It is not only a matter of reducing defects.   When I look at Ada and
then at C++, I realize that Ada provides other substantial benefits. In
Ada, used well, I achieve a greater level of traceability than I can
achieve in C++.   Without resorting to embedded comments, I can
code in Ada so the meaning of each construct is intuitive, unambiguous,
and absolutely explicit, and do it more effectively than I can with
C++.

As I compare the two languages in terms of long-term maintenance,
it becomes clear, to me, that Ada supports this important goal far
better than C++.   It is more readable long after being created. There
are far  fewer little gotchas than I might expect in corresponding C++
code.

From where I sit, when making a decision about software that needs
to live a long time, must be maintained over a long time, must work
as predicted for a long time, it is clear that I must choose Ada over
C++.  It is the responsible thing to do.

I don't know how well you know Ada.   I do know C++ well enough
to realize that one can do some interesting and powerful designs
with it.  We, you and I, do agree on the merits of the Alexandrescu
approach to using C++.   However, even when choosing the valuable
design counsel from people such as Alexandrescu, Koenig, and Myers,
I still find the reliability gap, early in the development process, too
large to trust C++ for weapon systems -- systems that mean the
difference between life and death.

I don't care what language someone uses for run-of-the-mill software.
I might even choose C++ for that myself.  In fact, I sometimes use
Visual C++ in my day-to-day programming.   But I do care about
which language we choose when human safety is an issue.  So far,
Ada seems to come closest to being the correct choice.

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Hyman Rosen]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> In Ada, used well

I suspect that you are a Japanese Joiner as well :-)

I think that any of the regular posters here would be
able to program as well in C++ as in Ada. I'm pretty
sure that if I had to work in Ada it wouldn't take me
very long to get up to expert level.

You're probably right about the level of C++ code around.
It's easy to bludgeon C++ code into submission when it
won't compile, instead of understanding what is wrong.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Richard Riehle wrote:
> 
>> In Ada, used well
> 
> I suspect that you are a Japanese Joiner as well :-)
> 
> I think that any of the regular posters here would be
> able to program as well in C++ as in Ada. I'm pretty
> sure that if I had to work in Ada it wouldn't take me
> very long to get up to expert level.

Well, I can say that for small projects, your statement
is probably true.

But I can speak for my own experience, that in
largish C++ projects, I always spent an incredible amount of
time looking in core files and working with a debugger to
find out why some "strange behaviour" was happening in
those C++ projects. Sometimes it was related to those
automatic type promotions, and at other times, it was
related to memory corruption problems of one sort or
another (and it need not even be your own code! Sometimes
C++ library code does this to you).

On top of all this, once you get your large C++ application
to actually work, you then want to "port it" to another
platform, with sometimes a different compiler (or even
a different/updated gcc compiler). What do you find?

   - Changed behavior in automatic type promotion, leading
     to changed application behavior
   - #include file problems
   - C++ library incompatibilities/limitations

Sure you can say that this occurs due to poor planning,
or design. But the Ada point is that this is not checked,
nor enforced up front by your tools.  My hobby time is
time I hate wasting this way ;-)

In smallish projects, Ada sometimes takes me longer. This
is usually due to library issues and bindings.

The payoff is huge though (for me) in largish projects. In
the last 4 years (I think) of using Ada (since my conversion ;),
I've only encountered memory corruption once (I had freed
an object twice due a logic/design error).  The rest of
my time is "quality time with the compiler", learning how
to avoid certain design errors, and learning how to better
engineer modules so that the dependencies are pure and
correct (C++'s elaboration is pale by comparison). My
debugging time is 25% or less of the C++ debugging time.
(This gives me a much more pleasant use of my hobby time).

When I debug, it is because I am finding out why _I_ made
some logic error. It is not due to corruption, or some
faulty elaboration order; not due to external memory
references that the linker decided were the same (name
collision), not due to #include file sequence, not due
to automatic type promotion surprises etc.

SUMMARY:

I don't agree with your statement for large projects.


> You're probably right about the level of C++ code around.
> It's easy to bludgeon C++ code into submission when it
> won't compile, instead of understanding what is wrong.

I also believe that inexperienced programmers can produce
better code in Ada95. You won't get the same from them
in C++, even if they can wrap their head around the existing
code they must read and customize.

But then, this is just my opinion on the subject.


DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME 8-)

Ada programmers may wince at this, but here is something that
I find really useful about Ada95 for my own Open
Source development:

If I look at a spec of a package I want to "clean up", and
I don't like the way the data type is presented, and want
to make some sort of wholesale change to the package, I'll
first make the necessary tweaks or major changes to the
specs. This may include:

  - Changing constants to enumerated types / vice versa
  - Changing a weak type to a strong type
  - Making types more range specified (subtypes)
  - Changing function/procedure API changes
  - Change a record/tagged type (class) to the other kind
  etc.

Then I jump into emacs, and start invoking "make" and let
the compiler tell me about all of those new errors that will
now spew of the compiler. Using emacs I jump to the source
of the error (using emacs macros) and make all the necessary
changes, until the errors go away. With Ada95 this has
never failed me, though I expect some little case may
bite me some day, doing changes like this.

THIS HAS NEVER WORKED WELL FOR C++. C++ would never identify
all of the necessary changes, because of the number of
"automatic conversions" and so on.  C++ never tells you
that you have a missing case in a switch statement, and
its very forgiving mixing enumerated types with ints etc.
C++ will not tell you when a related constant or #define
needs to be updated.

This Ada95 feature has made it possible for me to very
quickly produce clean library interfaces, because I am
not reluctant to make wholesale changes when I
think it might be beneficial to the client.


CURIOUSITY POLL?

I'd be interested if anyone actually uses this type of
procedure in more "critical" application development roles.
I am sure that others must take advantage of this, if not
secretly so? ;-)  Is this type of thing frowned upon by
DOD projects, or do they even know this type of thing
happens? Just curious.

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

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Robert Spooner]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> ...
> This Ada95 feature has made it possible for me to very
> quickly produce clean library interfaces, because I am
> not reluctant to make wholesale changes when I
> think it might be beneficial to the client.
> 
> 
> CURIOUSITY POLL?
> 
> I'd be interested if anyone actually uses this type of
> procedure in more "critical" application development roles.
> I am sure that others must take advantage of this, if not
> secretly so? ;-)  Is this type of thing frowned upon by
> DOD projects, or do they even know this type of thing
> happens? Just curious.
> 


I have done this. It's particularly helpful when I haven't gotten the 
design right the first time because of a lack of information early-on. I 
can't imagine doing it in any other language. Ada allows you to use the 
computer for things that computers are good for and humans are not - all 
that consistency checking. When I first was learning Ada I was 
astonished at the percentage of my programs that did exactly what I 
wanted once I had a clean compile. My debugger skills atrophied.

Bob
-- 
                             Robert L. Spooner
                      Registered Professional Engineer
                        Associate Research Engineer
                   Intelligent Control Systems Department

          Applied Research Laboratory        Phone: (814) 863-4120
          The Pennsylvania State University  FAX:   (814) 863-7841
          P. O. Box 30
          State College, PA 16804-0030       rls19@psu.edu

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Jerry Petrey]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote:

>
>
> CURIOUSITY POLL?
>
> I'd be interested if anyone actually uses this type of
> procedure in more "critical" application development roles.
> I am sure that others must take advantage of this, if not
> secretly so? ;-)  Is this type of thing frowned upon by
> DOD projects, or do they even know this type of thing
> happens? Just curious.
>
> --
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

You mean there is another way? :-)
I have always used this method with Ada development.
That is one of the things I love about Ada - you can let the compiler do so
much of the work for you. I have often had people new to Ada come to me
asking "can I do this or that in Ada?" - I usually tell them to try it and see
- let
the compiler tell you if it won't work; you will learn something from the
exercise
in either case.  It is hard to imagine using a language and compiler without
this level of
checking again.

Jerry
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Jerry Petrey
-- Senior Principal Systems Engineer - Navigation (GPS/INS), Guidance, &
Control
-- Raytheon Missile Systems          - Member Team Ada & Team Forth
-- NOTE: please remove <NOSPAM> in email address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Jeffrey Carter]

Jerry Petrey wrote:
 >
 > I have always used this method with Ada development. That is one of
 > the things I love about Ada - you can let the compiler do so much of
 > the work for you.

 > It is hard to imagine using a language and compiler without this
 > level of checking again.

I agree wholeheartedly. Ada has made me fat and lazy. There is one
caveat: compiler errors. I have (rarely) had things work that shouldn't
have in situations like this because of compiler errors.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You empty-headed animal-food-trough wiper."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Richard Riehle]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote:

> If I look at a spec of a package I want to "clean up", and
> I don't like the way the data type is presented, and want
> to make some sort of wholesale change to the package, I'll
> first make the necessary tweaks or major changes to the
> specs. This may include:
>
>   - Changing constants to enumerated types / vice versa

One of the things I find useful is to make constants into function
declarations.  As a trivial example,

       package Constants is
           function Ten return Integer;
           pragma Inline(Ten);
           function Avogradro return Float;
           pragma Inline(Avogadro);
       end Constants;

something I cannot do in C++ because of the need to have a full
implementation to create an inlined function.   This allows me
to compile the body separately, have whatever implementation
I wish, and modify the implementation if the need arises without
changing the specification.

>
>  - Changing a weak type to a strong type
>   - Making types more range specified (subtypes)

Not sure you meant that as shown.   Subtypes actually relax
the type model a little.  Also, I have seen problems with declaring
too many different real number types in some programs.

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> something I cannot do in C++ because of the need to have a full
> implementation to create an inlined function.

In Ada, if you have an inline function, the compiler wants to
see its body as well. This isn't particularly different from
C++. Of couse, in C++ you can't "silently" change a constant
into a function because to call a parameterless function in
C++ you still must supply parentheses.

> This allows me to compile the body separately, have whatever
 > implementation I wish, and modify the implementation if the
 > need arises without changing the specification.

If the function is inline and you change its implementation,
the compiler is going to want to recompile all its callers.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Richard Riehle]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> If the function is inline and you change its implementation,
> the compiler is going to want to recompile all its callers.

But no change to corresponding specifications.   The only thing
that needs to be recompiled is the implementating code and that
is compiled separately within package bodies.    This preserves
the integrity of the design.  Also,  there is no need to modify
any code, only to recompile a few of the bodies.

This is substantially different from the C++ model.

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Kevin Cline]

Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message news:<3E43FA31.9873C5AA@adaworks.com>...
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> > If the function is inline and you change its implementation,
> > the compiler is going to want to recompile all its callers.
> 
> But no change to corresponding specifications.   The only thing
> that needs to be recompiled is the implementating code and that
> is compiled separately within package bodies.    This preserves
> the integrity of the design.  Also,  there is no need to modify
> any code, only to recompile a few of the bodies.
> 
> This is substantially different from the C++ model.

I don't see the substantial difference, except that in C++ the
same syntax can not be used for data access and a niladic function call.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Richard Riehle]

Kevin Cline wrote:

> Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message news:<3E43FA31.9873C5AA@adaworks.com>...
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >
> > > If the function is inline and you change its implementation,
> > > the compiler is going to want to recompile all its callers.
> >
> > But no change to corresponding specifications.   The only thing
> > that needs to be recompiled is the implementating code and that
> > is compiled separately within package bodies.    This preserves
> > the integrity of the design.  Also,  there is no need to modify
> > any code, only to recompile a few of the bodies.
> >
> > This is substantially different from the C++ model.
>
> I don't see the substantial difference, except that in C++ the
> same syntax can not be used for data access and a niladic function call.

In C++, an inline function must be fully implemented in the class specification.
In Ada, one cannot include an implementation in a specification.   The implementing
code is separately compiled in the body.   This means that one need not
recompile the declarations when changing the implementation, in Ada.  In
C++, any change to the implementation requires recompilation of all
the dependent and derived class declarations.   This is a substantial
difference.

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> In C++, an inline function must be fully implemented in the class specification.
> In Ada, one cannot include an implementation in a specification.   The implementing
> code is separately compiled in the body.   This means that one need not
> recompile the declarations when changing the implementation, in Ada.  In
> C++, any change to the implementation requires recompilation of all
> the dependent and derived class declarations.   This is a substantial
> difference.

This is simply false. C++ requires that if you call an inline function,
the definition of that function must appear in the translation unit that
contains the call. It is not required to appear in the class definition,
nor must it appear when defining derived classes. The stated consequences
are thus also false. Richard, you are confusing typical practice with
actual requirements.

// foo.h
#ifndef FOO_H
#define FOO_H
struct foo { int bar(); };
#endif // FOO_H

// foo.inl
#ifndef FOO_INL
#define FOO_INL
#include "foo.h"
inline int foo::bar() { return 3; }
#endif // FOO_INL

// der.h
#ifndef DER_H
#define DER_H
#include "foo.h"
struct der : foo { int baz(); }
#endif // DER_H

// der.inl
#ifndef DER_INL
#define DER_INL
#include "der.h"
inline int der::baz() { return 7; }
#endif // DER_INL

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Richard Riehle]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> This is simply false. C++ requires that if you call an inline function,
> the definition of that function must appear in the translation unit that
> contains the call. It is not required to appear in the class definition,
> nor must it appear when defining derived classes. The stated consequences
> are thus also false. Richard, you are confusing typical practice with
> actual requirements.

1) Would you care to comment on why this is typical practice.

2) Can one declare a function as inline, or must one include
     its full definition when it is made inline?

3) In Ada, the equivalent of a declaration can be made inline, in
    the specification.    I believe, if I am reading Stroustrup correctly,
    and, yes, it seems to be typical practice,  any declaration of an
    inline function (as inline) must also be a definition.   If that inline
    function is declared anywhere in the source code, it must be a
    full definition.

Richard Riehle

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> 1) Would you care to comment on why this is typical practice.

Fewer characters to type, of course. Much less thinking involved.

> 2) Can one declare a function as inline, or must one include
>      its full definition when it is made inline?

The full definition must appear in any translation unit which
calls it. Inline is applied to definitions rather than declarations,
generally; there's not much point to doing otherwise.

> 3) In Ada, the equivalent of a declaration can be made inline, in
>     the specification.    I believe, if I am reading Stroustrup correctly,
>     and, yes, it seems to be typical practice,  any declaration of an
>     inline function (as inline) must also be a definition.   If that inline
>     function is declared anywhere in the source code, it must be a
>     full definition.

You may declare a function to be inline without providing a definition
for it. But any translation unit which uses the function must contain
the definition. (A translation unit is what you get after the preprocessor
has finished doing its work - all the #include files have been merged.)

This all happens as a consequence of C and C++ never having had a module
or package system that would allow the compiler to seek out a separate
file which holds the definition. It's possible to bolt on that sort of
thing; I believe Sun's C++ compilers have such a feature.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Richard Riehle]

OK.  I realize that there is some difference between C++ practice
and what is technically permitted by the language and allowed by
some compilers.    I also note the advice given by various authors
about this kind of thing, many of whom recommend a very conservative
approach since not all compilers behave in the same way.

And after reading all the postings, it seems to me that the Ada model
is still simpler, easier to understand, and more straightforward than
the rather confusing set of rules that characterize C++ inline functions.

Thanks,

Richard Riehle

========================================================

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Richard Riehle wrote:
> > 1) Would you care to comment on why this is typical practice.
>
> Fewer characters to type, of course. Much less thinking involved.
>
> > 2) Can one declare a function as inline, or must one include
> >      its full definition when it is made inline?
>
> The full definition must appear in any translation unit which
> calls it. Inline is applied to definitions rather than declarations,
> generally; there's not much point to doing otherwise.
>
> > 3) In Ada, the equivalent of a declaration can be made inline, in
> >     the specification.    I believe, if I am reading Stroustrup correctly,
> >     and, yes, it seems to be typical practice,  any declaration of an
> >     inline function (as inline) must also be a definition.   If that inline
> >     function is declared anywhere in the source code, it must be a
> >     full definition.
>
> You may declare a function to be inline without providing a definition
> for it. But any translation unit which uses the function must contain
> the definition. (A translation unit is what you get after the preprocessor
> has finished doing its work - all the #include files have been merged.)
>
> This all happens as a consequence of C and C++ never having had a module
> or package system that would allow the compiler to seek out a separate
> file which holds the definition. It's possible to bolt on that sort of
> thing; I believe Sun's C++ compilers have such a feature.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> And after reading all the postings, it seems to me that the Ada model
> is still simpler, easier to understand, and more straightforward than
> the rather confusing set of rules that characterize C++ inline functions.

Yes, of course. Isn't it always? :-)

Still, whenever I can, I want to make sure that on this newsgroup
the C++ facts are gotten straight. That way, we can have proper
discussions, without misinformation distorting the arguments.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Martin Krischik]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:49:14 +0000, Richard Riehle wrote:

> Kevin Cline wrote:
 
> 
> In C++, an inline function must be fully implemented in the class
> specification.

This is not true as others have pointed out. In fact you can't do this if
you want virtual inlines. For virtual inlines you have to do it outside
the class definition - and you have to provide a non inline version for
the virtual function table.

usualy you it with some ugly #if #endif:


#if defined (_XXX_CPP_)
#   define inline
#endif

inline void 
MyClass::myFunc ()
  {
  }

#if defined (_XXX_CPP_)
#   undef inline
#endif

And yes: the Ada solution is so much better.

Regards

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://Martin@krischik.com
http://www.martin.krischik.com

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> In fact you can't do this if you want virtual inlines.

Incorrect as well. You can have a virtual inline with the
definition in the class:
     struct a { virtual void foo() { } };

Perhaps you are thinking of providing an implementation
for an *abstract* method:
     struct a { virtual void foo() = 0; }
     inline void a::foo() { assert(false, "Strange!"); }
It's true in this case that the definition and the '= 0'
cannot appear together.

> For virtual inlines you have to do it outside the class
 > definition and you have to provide a non inline version
 > for the virtual function table.
> usualy you it with some ugly #if #endif:

This is totally wrong - you really should learn more C++
if you are going to make pronouncements about it. Inline
functions don't require any separate definitions for being
called indirectly, whether through the virtual table or by
having their address taken. The compiler takes care of that.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Martin Krischik]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:27:32 +0000, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> In fact you can't do this if you want virtual inlines.
> 
> Incorrect as well. You can have a virtual inline with the
> definition in the class:
>      struct a { virtual void foo() { } };

I tried that. The compiler won't say a thing - but the linker will be more
then upset. I might uf cource be dependen on the compiler.

> This is totally wrong - you really should learn more C++
> if you are going to make pronouncements about it. Inline
> functions don't require any separate definitions for being
> called indirectly, whether through the virtual table or by
> having their address taken. The compiler takes care of that.

I have 7 Years practical experience programming C++ - programming 8 hours
a day. But prehaps this discussiun shows less about yours and my
experience but more about the fact that no two C++ compilers are the same.

With Regards

Martin 

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://Martin@krischik.com
http://www.krischik.com

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> I tried that. The compiler won't say a thing - but the linker will be more
> then upset. I might uf cource be dependen on the compiler.

Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a new compiler.

If you are using compiler technology that can't handle simple
code like this, then I think I get to compare C++ to Ada running
on NYU's orginal Ada-ED ompiler, or worse.

> I have 7 Years practical experience programming C++ - programming 8 hours
> a day. But prehaps this discussiun shows less about yours and my
> experience but more about the fact that no two C++ compilers are the same.

Perhaps. Length of service is also not always an indication of level of skill.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Martin Krischik]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:08:17 +0000, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:

>> I tried that. The compiler won't say a thing - but the linker will be more
>> then upset. I might of cource be dependen on the compiler.

> Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a new compiler.

I can't. In real live not the programer decides which compiler to use. He
may make a suggesting and run against a wall with it.

> they are then merged into a single copy. There is only one virtual
> table for a class, merged in the same way if needed, so it "looks
> the same" by definition. any purpose.

I am not shure about that one. Even if compiler and linker work in such
perfect harmony how will they enshure that over DLL borders?

> Perhaps. Length of service is also not always an indication of level of skill.

Just as much a skill in reading books has nothing to do with skill in
practical programing.

Well, you have started to make personal comments. BTW: I am also 39 so I
don't quite qualify for "kid" either.

Still, I find your technical comments quite interesting. They do show me
what I have to expect when I do get to work with a more modern compiler.

With Regards

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://Martin@krischik.com
http://www.krischik.com

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> I can't. In real live not the programer decides which compiler to use. He
> may make a suggesting and run against a wall with it.

True. When I participate in this group, I'm more concerned with
abstract language issues rather than strictly practical nuts and
bolts. Still, your compilation system seems extremely out of date.
Are you free to say what system it is you are using?

> I am not shure about that one. Even if compiler and linker work in such
> perfect harmony how will they enshure that over DLL borders?

Well, DLLs can have all sorts of symbol information. There is no
reason that a dynamic linker can't do exactly the same kind of
merging that a static linker does.

> Well, you have started to make personal comments. BTW: I am also 39 so I
> don't quite qualify for "kid" either.

Yes you do. I'm 41 :-)

> Still, I find your technical comments quite interesting. They do show me
> what I have to expect when I do get to work with a more modern compiler.

Yep. By the way, if you want to use God's own C++ compiler (although without
linking) to check your code, try <http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout>.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Martin Krischik]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:00:30 +0000, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> I can't. In real live not the programer decides which compiler to use. He
>> may make a suggesting and run against a wall with it.
> 
> True. When I participate in this group, I'm more concerned with
> abstract language issues rather than strictly practical nuts and
> bolts. Still, your compilation system seems extremely out of date.
> Are you free to say what system it is you are using?

IBM C++. It is not only outdated but also out of support. But there are
large Libraries which depend on and so there is fear of change.
 
>> I am not shure about that one. Even if compiler and linker work in such
>> perfect harmony how will they enshure that over DLL borders?
 
> Well, DLLs can have all sorts of symbol information. There is no
> reason that a dynamic linker can't do exactly the same kind of
> merging that a static linker does.

DLL Loaders are usualy supplied from the Operating System and they are
usualy not Object-Orientated.

The IBM Compiler will only create one virtual function table and export it
from the DLL for other DLLs to use. I determines which DLL does the
exporting by the first virtual function encoutered. Woe you is that one is
inlined.  

Thats of course only until you use virtual inheritance - after that the compiler
starts to create virtual function tables left, right and centre.

With regards.

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://Martin@krischik.com
http://www.martin.krischik.com

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Martin Krischik]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:27:32 +0000, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> In fact you can't do this if you want virtual inlines.
> 
> This is totally wrong - you really should learn more C++
> if you are going to make pronouncements about it. Inline
> functions don't require any separate definitions for being
> called indirectly, whether through the virtual table or by
> having their address taken. The compiler takes care of that.

Well, let me elaborate on my previous comment. The problem here is that
the inline method is not attached to any paricular compilation unit (unlike Ada) but,
in worst case need to be elaborated in any compilation unit which includes
the inline. Inline is only a hint, the compiler might or might or might
not honor it.

And most compilers will, of course, optimize here and not elaborate the method
when not used. Anyway, the compiler will need a non inlined version to fill the
virtual function table. And the virtual function table will be needed
wherever the is a contructor. And a contructor might be inline as well or
compiler provided.

That would mean that the virtual inline might be elaborated hundreds of
time - in every compilation unit with a contructor call. With the result
that no two virtual function tables will look the same.

The problem becomes even more interesting when using DLLs.

Some C++ style guides suggest not to use virtual inlines because of it.

Some C++ compiler vendors choose not to automaticly elaborate virtual
inlines because of it. 

And the core statement stays: Ada inlines are superior to C++ inlines.

With Regards

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://Martin@krischik.com
http://www.martin.krischik.com

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> That would mean that the virtual inline might be elaborated hundreds of
> time - in every compilation unit with a contructor call. With the result
> that no two virtual function tables will look the same.

Excuse me, but you really are extremely mistaken. I repeat, please
acquaint yourself with the language before making pronouncements
about it, so that you will not spread misinformation.

C++ compilers use a variety of means to decide when to generate
"elaborations" of virtual functions. In general, even if this
happens in multiple compilation units, linker directives are used
to indicate that all of the instantiations must be identical and
they are then merged into a single copy. There is only one virtual
table for a class, merged in the same way if needed, so it "looks
the same" by definition. I have no idea what constructors have to
do with any of this, since constructors are never virtual. You
just seem to be confused.

> Some C++ style guides suggest not to use virtual inlines because of it.

Some C++ style guides are desperately out of date, and others have been
written by people with the same lack of knowledge of C++ that you show.
Some descriptions of Ada report that it's a language designed by a
committee, is bloated, was forced upon people by the military, and is
generally unsuitable for any purpose.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[K]

Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message news:<3E432DD4.7F256C85@adaworks.com>...
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote:
> 
> > If I look at a spec of a package I want to "clean up", and
> > I don't like the way the data type is presented, and want
> > to make some sort of wholesale change to the package, I'll
> > first make the necessary tweaks or major changes to the
> > specs. This may include:
> >
> >   - Changing constants to enumerated types / vice versa
> 
> One of the things I find useful is to make constants into function
> declarations.  As a trivial example,
> 
>        package Constants is
>            function Ten return Integer;
>            pragma Inline(Ten);
>            function Avogradro return Float;
>            pragma Inline(Avogadro);
>        end Constants;
> 
> something I cannot do in C++ because of the need to have a full
> implementation to create an inlined function.   This allows me
> to compile the body separately, have whatever implementation
> I wish, and modify the implementation if the need arises without
> changing the specification.

If the function is inlined, won't a change in the function body
force a recompilation of any package that called the function?
And if so, then isn't the effect the same as a specification change?

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Vinzent Hoefler]

slatyb@yahoo.com (K) wrote:

>If the function is inlined, won't a change in the function body
>force a recompilation of any package that called the function?

Yes, of course.

>And if so, then isn't the effect the same as a specification change?

No, because there are no changes needed in the source of the calling
code.


Vinzent.

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[K]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<3E42A61C.20905@cogeco.ca>...
> But I can speak for my own experience, that in
> largish C++ projects, I always spent an incredible amount of
> time looking in core files and working with a debugger to
> find out why some "strange behaviour" was happening in
> those C++ projects. Sometimes it was related to those
> automatic type promotions, and at other times, it was
> related to memory corruption problems of one sort or
> another (and it need not even be your own code! Sometimes
> C++ library code does this to you).

Ada library code doesn't do this to you because there is none.
But any Ada code that uses new/unchecked_deallocation has the
potential
to corrupt the heap.

> 
> On top of all this, once you get your large C++ application
> to actually work, you then want to "port it" to another
> platform, with sometimes a different compiler (or even
> a different/updated gcc compiler). What do you find?

Why not just port to the same version of gcc?

> 
>    - Changed behavior in automatic type promotion, leading
>      to changed application behavior
>    - #include file problems
>    - C++ library incompatibilities/limitations

I'm guessing that you only use a single Ada compiler, GNAT.
The Ada standard is a few years older than the C++ standard,
so there is less change between compiler versions.
Gcc has tried to track the C++ standard as it evolved from draft
to draft, so naturally there have been language changes from 
version to version.  And every system vendor provides a licensed
C++ compiler, and they have converged on the standard at different
rates.  The obvious solution is to do the same thing you have done
with Ada: build the same version of gcc on every platform.

> 
> Sure you can say that this occurs due to poor planning,
> or design. But the Ada point is that this is not checked,
> nor enforced up front by your tools.  My hobby time is
> time I hate wasting this way ;-)
> 
> In smallish projects, Ada sometimes takes me longer. This
> is usually due to library issues and bindings.
> 
> The payoff is huge though (for me) in largish projects. In
> the last 4 years (I think) of using Ada (since my conversion ;),
> I've only encountered memory corruption once (I had freed
> an object twice due a logic/design error).  The rest of
> my time is "quality time with the compiler", learning how
> to avoid certain design errors, and learning how to better
> engineer modules so that the dependencies are pure and
> correct (C++'s elaboration is pale by comparison). My
> debugging time is 25% or less of the C++ debugging time.
> (This gives me a much more pleasant use of my hobby time).
> 
> When I debug, it is because I am finding out why _I_ made
> some logic error. It is not due to corruption, or some
> faulty elaboration order; not due to external memory
> references that the linker decided were the same (name
> collision), not due to #include file sequence, not due
> to automatic type promotion surprises etc.
> 
> SUMMARY:
> 
> I don't agree with your statement for large projects.
> 
> 
> > You're probably right about the level of C++ code around.
> > It's easy to bludgeon C++ code into submission when it
> > won't compile, instead of understanding what is wrong.
> 
> I also believe that inexperienced programmers can produce
> better code in Ada95. 

Their code may be less prone to crash, but it also is 
less featureful because they have relatively few libraries
to draw upon, and none have a large user base.

> You won't get the same from them
> in C++, even if they can wrap their head around the existing
> code they must read and customize.
> 
> But then, this is just my opinion on the subject.
> 
> 
> DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME 8-)
> 
> Ada programmers may wince at this, but here is something that
> I find really useful about Ada95 for my own Open
> Source development:
> 
> If I look at a spec of a package I want to "clean up", and
> I don't like the way the data type is presented, and want
> to make some sort of wholesale change to the package, I'll
> first make the necessary tweaks or major changes to the
> specs. This may include:
> 
>   - Changing constants to enumerated types / vice versa
>   - Changing a weak type to a strong type
>   - Making types more range specified (subtypes)
>   - Changing function/procedure API changes
>   - Change a record/tagged type (class) to the other kind
>   etc.
> 
> Then I jump into emacs, and start invoking "make" and let
> the compiler tell me about all of those new errors that will
> now spew of the compiler. Using emacs I jump to the source
> of the error (using emacs macros) and make all the necessary
> changes, until the errors go away. With Ada95 this has
> never failed me, though I expect some little case may
> bite me some day, doing changes like this.
> 
> THIS HAS NEVER WORKED WELL FOR C++. 

It works very well for me.  It even works on the fairly large body of
commercial code that I am currently maintaining.  
Recently I needed to delete a business rule, and I started by deleting
an argument from the declaration of the function that enforced the
rule.
Then I just fixed compile errors recursively until there were no more.

> C++ would never identify
> all of the necessary changes, because of the number of
> "automatic conversions" and so on.  C++ never tells you
> that you have a missing case in a switch statement, and
> its very forgiving mixing enumerated types with ints etc.

You can convert enumerated types to int, but can not
convert ints to enumerated types.  Even the first conversion
could be unfortunate if one wanted to change an argument type
from an enumeration to int.  However, I prefer to wrap enumerations
in a typesafe template class.  But switch statements are much safer
in Ada.  I avoid them in C++ because it's too easy to miss one.

> C++ will not tell you when a related constant or #define
> needs to be updated.

Nor will Ada, nor any other language.  If you declare
x = 17, and y = 289, no compiler will divine
that y should be equal to x*x.  But it's certainly
possible in C++ to define the y in terms of x.
This sounds like a comparison of correct Ada practice with
poor C++ practice.

With templates, you can even compute functions
of integer constants at compile time:
    const int x = 8;
    const int y = Factorial<x>::value;

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

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

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > Richard Riehle wrote:
> >
> >> In Ada, used well
> > I suspect that you are a Japanese Joiner as well :-)
> > I think that any of the regular posters here would be
> > able to program as well in C++ as in Ada. I'm pretty
> > sure that if I had to work in Ada it wouldn't take me
> > very long to get up to expert level.
> 
> Well, I can say that for small projects, your statement
> is probably true.
> 
> But I can speak for my own experience, that in
> largish C++ projects, I always spent an incredible amount of
> time looking in core files and working with a debugger to
> find out why some "strange behaviour" was happening in
> those C++ projects. Sometimes it was related to those
> automatic type promotions, and at other times, it was
> related to memory corruption problems of one sort or
> another (and it need not even be your own code! Sometimes
> C++ library code does this to you).
> 
> On top of all this, once you get your large C++ application
> to actually work, you then want to "port it" to another
> platform, with sometimes a different compiler (or even
> a different/updated gcc compiler). What do you find?
> 
>    - Changed behavior in automatic type promotion, leading
>      to changed application behavior
>    - #include file problems
>    - C++ library incompatibilities/limitations
> 
> Sure you can say that this occurs due to poor planning,
> or design. But the Ada point is that this is not checked,
> nor enforced up front by your tools.  My hobby time is
> time I hate wasting this way ;-)

I mostly agree with you, but Ada systems may bite you too. I have a
small program which essentially does a test of the speed of the file
system, while running multiple tasks. This program has been unchanged
for years, has run fine on Solaris, NT, Linux. I recently installed
SuSe 8.1, compiled the program and ran it. Result: Segmentation violation, no
other messages. Started gdb, which promptly crashed with an internal
error.  

Turned on stack checking, still same result.  

Decreased the size of the buffer, allocated on the stack, as I
suspected that I had exceeded max stack size for a task, and it
worked fine.

As a last test, increased the buffer size to twice of what it was
originally, and then got the expected exception.

-- 
Ole-Hj. Kristensen

******************************************************************************
* You cannot consistently believe this sentence.
******************************************************************************

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 13:14:52 -0500, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG"
<ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote:

[skip]

>CURIOUSITY POLL?
>
>I'd be interested if anyone actually uses this type of
>procedure in more "critical" application development roles.
>I am sure that others must take advantage of this, if not
>secretly so? ;-)  Is this type of thing frowned upon by
>DOD projects, or do they even know this type of thing
>happens? Just curious.

I am using this technique for both C++ and Ada, mostly because the
strategy of our firm and our customers is: "very quick and incredibly
dirty". (:-))

It works perfectly in Ada, but has serious problems in C++, especially
with MS VC++, which is unable to recompile as necessary, even if
precompiled hearders are not used (this feature does not work anyway).
It is disastrous because a recompile-all lasts for 4-hours to see how
thousands compile errors appear on the screen. Add here, that during
compilation one cannot edit because of a "perfect" team work of MS IDE
and the operating system, which block the whole system for 10-15 sec
during code generation and linking. The project is large indeed, and
it seems so that we pushed it to the very limit of what could be done
with C++, probably beyond it.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Marin David Condic]

Bummer. I know the feeling. De donde eres tu? While Ada jobs are scarce,
they still exist and maybe someone here knows of something in your area. I
sympathize with the relocation thing - I certainly don't want to keep
packing up and moving about the country just to work with a specific
language. Consider the options carefully - even if a job involves C++, its
still up to you to make the job into whatever you want it to be.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:lmx_9.2638$c6.1784@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> to find a new line of work.
>
> C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
> part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
> any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!
>
> I'll still peek in here once in a while....
>

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Anders Wirzenius]

"Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:lmx_9.2638$c6.1784@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
> to find a new line of work.
>
> C/C++ is unacceptable (except as a minor
> part of the job), and I don't want to relocate
> any more.  So I guess I'll become a Spanish teacher!
>
> I'll still peek in here once in a while....
>

Just a hint:

Join a company where programming is not the core business.
If the way to achieve a solution is not an issue, hence, you might be free to choose your own means to get the work done.

I work for a company in the heavy steel business. I don't work full time programming, but almost all my programming is done with
Ada. I produce mainly reports from databases and dynamic intranet pages. I keep a rather low profile, I don't overemphasize the
means how I achieve my goals, so I have managed to keep my "private" small workshop with Ada. Not a glorious situation, but at least
I can do my Ada coding...

Anders Wirzenius

Re: Bye-bye Ada ?

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Anders Wirzenius wrote:
> "Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:lmx_9.2638$c6.1784@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> 
>>Well, one Ada proponent has just been asked
>>to find a new line of work.

:-(

> Just a hint:
> 
> Join a company where programming is not the core business.

Good point.  That is basically how I get away with mostly writing Ada 
programs (can't stay completely away from POSIX Shell though).

Jacob
-- 
http://jacob.sparre.dk/

RE: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Beard, Frank Randolph CIV]

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca]

> CURIOUSITY POLL?
>
> I'd be interested if anyone actually uses this type of
> procedure in more "critical" application development roles.
> I am sure that others must take advantage of this, if not
> secretly so? ;-)  Is this type of thing frowned upon by
> DOD projects, or do they even know this type of thing
> happens? Just curious.

I don't know how "critical" you mean, but I've used this
feature of Ada on a number of occasions which stemmed 
multiple projects from running the on ground test chambers 
for the Space Shuttle group, to the onboard Space Station
data storage and retrieval component, to a Naval 
communications project.

Even though our tools usually give us the capability to
see a callers graph, it is still more useful to prototype
changes in the spec and have the compiler reliably show me
the immediate impacts of the changes.  And once the changes
made it to fruition, they required very little debugging.

I don't think I've ever openly shared this information even
with fellow Ada developers, but it sure does make things
easier.

Frank

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Beard, Frank Randolph CIV wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca]
>>CURIOUSITY POLL?
>>
>>I'd be interested if anyone actually uses this type of
>>procedure in more "critical" application development roles.
>>I am sure that others must take advantage of this, if not
>>secretly so? ;-)  Is this type of thing frowned upon by
>>DOD projects, or do they even know this type of thing
>>happens? Just curious.
> 
> 
> I don't know how "critical" you mean, but I've used this
> feature of Ada on a number of occasions which stemmed 
> multiple projects from running the on ground test chambers 
> for the Space Shuttle group, to the onboard Space Station
> data storage and retrieval component, to a Naval 
> communications project.
> 
> Even though our tools usually give us the capability to
> see a callers graph, it is still more useful to prototype
> changes in the spec and have the compiler reliably show me
> the immediate impacts of the changes.  And once the changes
> made it to fruition, they required very little debugging.
> 
> I don't think I've ever openly shared this information even
> with fellow Ada developers, but it sure does make things
> easier.
> 
> Frank

I appreciate the comments you and others have made to this
informal "curiosity poll". This confirms the general usefulness
of the Ada compiler in this role. I think this goes a long
way to creating good "APIs", since the programmer is much
more inclined to make sweeping changes if it is seen as
beneficial.

The responses also seem to highlight the fact that C++
programmers think their compiler is doing a
good job of this. I know from personal experience that it
can only be helpful in obvious changes (like adding an
argument to a call). But in my opinion, experienced Ada
programmers are more "enlightened" on this point.

All of the posts were very "interesting". ;-)

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

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Hyman Rosen]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> All of the posts were very "interesting". ;-)

I remember the days when "keep fixing the code
until it compiles" would have been rank heresy,
and an accusation leveled against C folk :-)

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1044900058.276774@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>> All of the posts were very "interesting". ;-)
> 
> I remember the days when "keep fixing the code
> until it compiles" would have been rank heresy,
> and an accusation leveled against C folk :-)

I was under the impression it was "keep fixing the code until it runs",
since small typographical errors in Ada are more likely to be found.

For Bliss, we (including Bliss programmers) say "keep adding dots until
there is an access violation, then remove the last dot".

Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

[David Botton]

Doesn't every one do this?

Richard Riehle once wrote:

" But the compiler will catch any potential ambiguities.   This is
the key point.  Ada is designed to detect inconsistencies, irregularities,
discontinuities, incongruencies, and unconfirmable constructs earlier in
the software development process than any other language. "

Also, see his article on Ada Power at:
http://www.adapower.com/articles/capsule.html

This is THE reason that Ada should be THE choice for almost every project.
In particular for the free time hack!

David Botton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>
> DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME 8-)