Re: Ada 200X

["Steve" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com>]

<And838N@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.5.1054503443.12990.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
[snip]
> I'm pretty new to Ada but I have been using and tutoring C,C++, Java for
over 5 years now.  When I decided to "try out" Ada one of the first things I
noticed was the String problem as Warren described.  My solutions was to
write procedures (functions) in a package that took a parameter of type
String, then overloaded that procedure to use Unbounded_String and so on so
that I could use whatever I was comfortable with.  I even overloaded
procedures and functions to take the String_Access.  Anyway, my point is,
for users coming out of C, C++, Java, like me, it would be a TREMENDOUS help
to make the "String" transition easier.
>

When I was new to Ada, I started using Bounded_String's instead of
Unbounded.  But considered dealing with strings to be a pain.  I've become
used to working with strings in Ada, but I still find them somewhat awk
award.

> There was one other issue I came across when writing my first Linked list
in Ada.  There is no "this" keyword.  It didn't take long for me to realize
that a class in Ada is not at all like a class as I understand from college
(C++, Java).  The "flavor" of an Ada was C struct like to me and required
passing "my" instance as a parameter to a procedure of function in a package
so that I could use "this".
>

I consider the missing "this" to be a misconception.  After years of
programming using "types" and "variables" C++ started using the same thing,
re-arranging the syntax a little, permitting inheritance, and re-branding
"types" as "classes" and "variables" as "instances".

In C++ you have:
  hdc.DrawLine( x1, y1, x2, y2 );

In Ada you have:
  DrawLine( hdc, x1, y1, x2, y2 );

They are really just different syntactic ways of representing exactly the
same thing.

> My view may be somewhat biased because I'm new to Ada but the idea of an
Ada class doesn't seem like a class to me at all.  It seems like putting a
bunch of C methods and a struct definition into a .c file and compiling it
and calling it a class.  There's obviously more to Ada than that but I
described how it "seemed" for someone trying to move to Ada.
>
> My purpose for moving to Ada is all the hype about reducing the cost of
maintenance and the quicker development time.  I read a bunch of articles on
how Ada is superior to other languages because once you learn it your
development goes quicker and the end result requires less maintenance.  Two
key things if I want to play in a global market against "inexpensive"
programmers/engineering firms in places like India.
>
> I've heard professors say they don't like Ada because it's slow and does
all those "bounds" checking "things".  My opinion is; take a look at the
bugs in MS code that lead to viruses because of buffer exploits and
unchecked "bounds".  Ada just seems a smart way to go, especially with newer
faster processors.  Most people don't recognize the speed up anyway unless
the go from 300MHz to a 2.4GHz.
>

It's unfortunate that these views come out professors these days.  It's no
wonder software reliability hasn't increased over time.

> I've been working with Ada seriously for about a month now and the more I
learn the more I like it.  It does not have the flavor of a "business" type
language, even though it is perfectly useable for such applications.  But
sometimes the "flavor" of the language is almost as important as the
language itself!  Especially if you want to open the "market" up.
> Making Ada easy to transition to would be something to consider in
Ada200X, IMHBiasedO.

A good place to start is to learn the language well.  And then add a few
more cents.

Steve
(The Duck)