Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

[Anders Wirzenius <anders@no.email.thanks.invalid>]

Benjamin Ketcham <bketcham@drizzle.com> writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Uncle.

Anders