Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

I'm new to Ada, but not to programming in general. Decided to learn a new
language, and Ada was of interest to me. Am enjoying the language so far -
using GNAT GPL nad Coronado's old tutorial.

Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Alex Mentis]

On May 20, 8:53 am, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
> I'm new to Ada, but not to programming in general. Decided to learn a new
> language, and Ada was of interest to me. Am enjoying the language so far -
> using GNAT GPL nad Coronado's old tutorial.
>
> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..
> --
> Duke
> *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***

There are others who will be more qualified to answer this than me,
but
annecdotally it sounds to me like Ada has a wider base in Europe right
now
than in the US.

The language is good for embedded, real-time, and safety-critical
software
where high reliability is required.  It is often used in the space
and
aviation industries for these reasons.

Some like Ada as a teaching language.  A lot of its syntax is Pascal-
like.
A frequently-cited weakness in the academic area is that there are not
a lot
of people developing packages for Ada that students can use to achieve
a
high level of functionality for a low cost (in time) of learning.
Students
tend to be able to do much more advanced (graphics, networking, etc.)
projects more quickly with languages that have more libraries and
community
support than Ada currently offers.

Alex

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Pascal Obry]

Alex,

> A frequently-cited weakness in the academic area is that there are not
> a lot
> of people developing packages for Ada that students can use to achieve
> a
> high level of functionality for a low cost (in time) of learning.
> Students
> tend to be able to do much more advanced (graphics, networking, etc.)
> projects more quickly with languages that have more libraries and
> community
> support than Ada currently offers.

This is the exact opposite of what a professor reported here on
comp.lang.ada some time ago. Despites that Java offers lot of libraries
not a single student was able to finish properly the yearly project
where Ada student used to almost all finish the project.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|    http://www.obry.net  -  http://v2p.fr.eu.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 20 May 2010 17:05:36 +0200, Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> a écrit:
> comp.lang.ada some time ago. Despites that Java offers lot of libraries
> not a single student was able to finish properly the yearly project
> where Ada student used to almost all finish the project.
... and with less errors (I remember a report, but not the url, sorry)


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 20 May 2010 15:59:03 +0200, Alex Mentis <asmentis@gmail.com> a  
écrit:
> A frequently-cited weakness in the academic area is that there are not
> a lot
> of people developing packages for Ada that students can use to achieve
> a
> high level of functionality for a low cost (in time) of learning.
> Students
I remember Jean-Pierre Rosen, telling how some people think there is not  
library available in Ada for this and that. He explained most of of times,  
people was surprised when he gave them a link to the material they were  
seeking for.

Here is a list of bindings which may be of interest (I'm not using this  
material myself, so cannot tell more):
http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 20 May 2010 14:53:35 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> I'm new to Ada, but not to programming in general. Decided to learn a new
> language, and Ada was of interest to me. Am enjoying the language so far  
> -
> using GNAT GPL nad Coronado's old tutorial.
>
> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s)  
> does
> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..
Hi, welcome so,

One of the most meaningful list I know to get an answer to “who is using  
Ada”:
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html

I do not know a list for smaller projects or applications.

Here is also a quick historical introduction:
http://www.sigada.org/ada_95/what_is_ada.html

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Duke Normandin wrote:
> 
> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..

Ada tends to be the language of choice for software engineers (~2% of all 
developers). It excels whenever correctness is important. To my mind, that is 
all software.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"C++ is like jamming a helicopter inside a Miata
and expecting some sort of improvement."
Drew Olbrich
51

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Gautier write-only]

On May 20, 2:53 pm, Duke Normandin wrote:

> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used,

AFAIK it has never been widely used (so you can forget the "still").
As a language designed from scratch, it came too late to challenge
established languages (among them, C). The first version was perhaps
too rich to be competitive in the nascent microcomputing world - so it
that sense, it was too early. But wait, we are still in 2010. Perhaps
people in 2050 will ask themselves why the heck these fragile
"#include", '}' and pointers-everywhere-paradigm were still in use in
2010...

> and in what area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc?

It is excellent in these areas, and probably in many others...
_________________________________________________________
Gautier's Ada programming -- http://sf.net/users/gdemont/

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-20, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Thu, 20 May 2010 15:59:03 +0200, Alex Mentis <asmentis@gmail.com> a  
> �crit:
>> A frequently-cited weakness in the academic area is that there are not
>> a lot
>> of people developing packages for Ada that students can use to achieve
>> a
>> high level of functionality for a low cost (in time) of learning.
>> Students
> I remember Jean-Pierre Rosen, telling how some people think there is not  
> library available in Ada for this and that. He explained most of of times,  
> people was surprised when he gave them a link to the material they were  
> seeking for.
>
> Here is a list of bindings which may be of interest (I'm not using this  
> material myself, so cannot tell more):
> http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html
>

That URL is not much good - all the links are dead!

Perhaps Ada should have a _real_ home, where it is guaranteed that noob
students, and noob old farts like me will indeed find the resources needed
to make Ada shine! ;)
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-20, Alex Mentis <asmentis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 8:53�am, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> I'm new to Ada, but not to programming in general. Decided to learn a new
>> language, and Ada was of interest to me. Am enjoying the language so far -
>> using GNAT GPL nad Coronado's old tutorial.
>>
>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
>> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..
>> --
>> Duke
>> *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***
>
> There are others who will be more qualified to answer this than me, but
> annecdotally it sounds to me like Ada has a wider base in Europe right now
> than in the US.
>
> The language is good for embedded, real-time, and safety-critical software
> where high reliability is required.  It is often used in the space and
> aviation industries for these reasons.
>
> Some like Ada as a teaching language.  A lot of its syntax is Pascal-
> like.  A frequently-cited weakness in the academic area is that there are
> not a lot of people developing packages for Ada that students can use to
> achieve a high level of functionality for a low cost (in time) of
> learning.  Students tend to be able to do much more advanced (graphics,
> networking, etc.) projects more quickly with languages that have more
> libraries and community support than Ada currently offers.
>
> Alex

That is indeed sad, given that Ada is such a mature language. These types of
resources should have been freely available at Ada's home a long time ago.
However, I suspect that the commercialization of Ada has, in the past, been
responsible for impeding its proliferation. Same trauma suffered by many
other great languages, some of whom are bordering on extinction. There still
may be time for Ada?
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Anonymous]

> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..

Ada was never widely used. It could have been, because it's one of the all
time great general purpose languages. There's probably no better or more
flexible HLL. However, various factors combined to make it a niche language
and it doesn't have any hope of breaking out of that niche or getting the
use and exposure it deserves.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
>> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..
>
> Ada was never widely used. It could have been, because it's one of the all
> time great general purpose languages. There's probably no better or more
> flexible HLL. However, various factors combined to make it a niche language
> and it doesn't have any hope of breaking out of that niche or getting the
> use and exposure it deserves.
>

Well! Doesn't _that_ just suck! Tell me more about these "various factors" -
off this NG if you prefer. I need to make an informed decision as to whether
or not I should continue learning Ada.
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Manuel Gomez]

On 20 mayo, 20:58, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
> > Here is a list of bindings which may be of interest (I'm not using this  
> > material myself, so cannot tell more):
> >http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html
>
> That URL is not much good - all the links are dead!
>
> Perhaps Ada should have a _real_ home, where it is guaranteed that noob
> students, and noob old farts like me will indeed find the resources needed
> to make Ada shine! ;)

Start at these websites, they contain much more updated information
thanks to the Ada community:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming
http://adacommons.org/Main_Page
http://wiki.ada-dk.org/index.php/Main_Page

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-20, Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 2:53�pm, Duke Normandin wrote:
>
>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used,
>
> AFAIK it has never been widely used (so you can forget the "still").
> As a language designed from scratch, it came too late to challenge
> established languages (among them, C). The first version was perhaps
> too rich to be competitive in the nascent microcomputing world - so it
> that sense, it was too early. But wait, we are still in 2010. Perhaps
> people in 2050 will ask themselves why the heck these fragile
> "#include", '}' and pointers-everywhere-paradigm were still in use in
> 2010...
>
>> and in what area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc?
>
> It is excellent in these areas, and probably in many others...

So it would be fair to say that Ada is truly a "general-purpose" language?
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-20, Manuel Gomez <mgrojo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 mayo, 20:58, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> > Here is a list of bindings which may be of interest (I'm not using this �
>> > material myself, so cannot tell more):
>> >http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html
>>
>> That URL is not much good - all the links are dead!
>>
>> Perhaps Ada should have a _real_ home, where it is guaranteed that noob
>> students, and noob old farts like me will indeed find the resources needed
>> to make Ada shine! ;)
>
> Start at these websites, they contain much more updated information
> thanks to the Ada community:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming
> http://adacommons.org/Main_Page
> http://wiki.ada-dk.org/index.php/Main_Page

Muchas gracias...
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Duke Normandin writes:
> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what
>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching,
>>> graphics, etc? TIA..
>>
>> Ada was never widely used. It could have been, because it's one of
>> the all time great general purpose languages. There's probably no
>> better or more flexible HLL. However, various factors combined to
>> make it a niche language and it doesn't have any hope of breaking out
>> of that niche or getting the use and exposure it deserves.
>
> Well! Doesn't _that_ just suck! Tell me more about these "various
> factors" - off this NG if you prefer. I need to make an informed
> decision as to whether or not I should continue learning Ada.

My experience shows that:

- people who learn Ada become more adept at other languages.  This is
  because Ada teaches them to think properly.  This in turn is because,
  in Ada, concepts are much more orthogonal than in other languages
  (e.g. encapsulation is orthogonal to types).

- people who spend the effort to learn Ada show they are real software
  engineers.  A real software enginer bases their decisions on technical
  merits, not popularity.

- Sloppy programmers avoid Ada, therefore Ada helps avoid sloppy
  programmers.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:51:19 GMT, Duke Normandin wrote:

> On 2010-05-20, Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 20, 2:53�pm, Duke Normandin wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used,
>>
>> AFAIK it has never been widely used (so you can forget the "still").
>> As a language designed from scratch, it came too late to challenge
>> established languages (among them, C). The first version was perhaps
>> too rich to be competitive in the nascent microcomputing world - so it
>> that sense, it was too early. But wait, we are still in 2010. Perhaps
>> people in 2050 will ask themselves why the heck these fragile
>> "#include", '}' and pointers-everywhere-paradigm were still in use in
>> 2010...
>>
>>> and in what area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc?
>>
>> It is excellent in these areas, and probably in many others...
> 
> So it would be fair to say that Ada is truly a "general-purpose" language?

Ada was designed as an universal-purpose language to supersede other
languages (this was one of the language design goals).

Most important Ada features to me:

- An elaborated type system
- Consistently implemented OO (*)
- High level concurrency support (**)
- Portable programming support (***)
- Efficient code generation
- Defined semantics of the language constructs
- Static analysis support
- Standardized
------------------------------------------
* broken in most OOPL
** low level in other concurrent languages
*** in Ada you tell what you want from the compiler. I.e. your design is
driven by the requirements. In other languages you have to use what the
compiler offers to you, e.g.
  type Sensor range 1..100: (Ada)
  int Sensor; (C)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 20 May 2010 21:06:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> That is indeed sad, given that Ada is such a mature language. These  
> types of
> resources should have been freely available at Ada's home a long time  
> ago.
> However, I suspect that the commercialization of Ada has, in the past,  
> been
> responsible for impeding its proliferation. Same trauma suffered by many
> other great languages, some of whom are bordering on extinction. There  
> still
> may be time for Ada?
On the other hand, people are responsible for assuming or not assuming the  
value of things. If some people (in fact, most of) don't want to assume  
the price of better, that is, may be not always free of charge, more time  
to spend to do and learn, or think before instead of after, then, who is  
responsible ?

Unfortunately, the best in software, values less than a peanut to most  
people (not a picture, a fact).

What I mean, is : not sure Ada's community is the sole responsible for  
what you are pointing. Many people are also.

And never mind, Ada (or its successor 100 years later) will always be  
there for people who know its value ;)

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 20 May 2010 20:58:01 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> That URL is not much good - all the links are dead!
>
> Perhaps Ada should have a _real_ home, where it is guaranteed that noob
> students, and noob old farts like me will indeed find the resources  
> needed
> to make Ada shine! ;)
Sorry, this was in my bookmarks (some are old, indeed)

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 20 May 2010 21:51:19 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> So it would be fair to say that Ada is truly a "general-purpose"  
> language?
Depends on what means “general-purpose”. What would be a  
“general-application” ? Not so much relevant.

I would say it is good for core implementations, where no higher level  
paradigms was shown to be better suited ; that is, most of system-level  
and most of core application-level. For higher levels, there is a galaxy  
specific-domain-languages which may be better.

The frontier may also be the one of safety or efficiency. Draw a line  
below which efficiency and safety values more (and is most likely to be an  
issue) than plasticity, then below this line, would suggest Ada, and above  
this line, may suggest something else.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 20 May 2010 21:35:16 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> Well! Doesn't _that_ just suck! Tell me more about these "various  
> factors" -
> off this NG if you prefer. I need to make an informed decision as to  
> whether
> or not I should continue learning Ada.
Suggestion : I suppose you came to Ada later after others (this was  
probably not the “must-have cool stuff” many people recommended to you  
first). You may use to think “Why is this and that so much clumsy stupid  
and so much non-logic with this XYZ language or paradigm ?”. Then, may be  
you though to switch to something else after some any times, because of  
many and any reasons. So, what about just have a try and see if, let say,  
next year, you will have some reason to leave this language and paradigm ?

What about just try and see if the experience gonna be same or different ?

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

@Yannick
@Dmitry

Thank you for your comments and insights!

Ada continues to attrack me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
...)  ;)
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Gautier write-only]

On May 20, 8:58 pm, Duke Normandin wrote:

> >http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html
>
> That URL is not much good - all the links are dead!
>
> Perhaps Ada should have a _real_ home, where it is guaranteed that noob
> students, and noob old farts like me will indeed find the resources needed
> to make Ada shine! ;)

That's exactly the problem with web homes: they need lots of
maintenance.
Once the time for it is gone, they become ghost homes - to begin with
dead links...
I could cite around 4-5 absolutely definitive enthusiastic "Ada homes"
at different stage of abandon...
The wiki's Manuel is citing are in a better shape because of a better
concept.
Other good places to chase resources are also non Ada-centric sites:

http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/?&fq[]=trove%3A163
http://freshmeat.net/tags/ada
?

G.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 21 May 2010 01:17:45 +0200, Gautier write-only  
<gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> a écrit:
> I could cite around 4-5 absolutely definitive enthusiastic "Ada homes"
> at different stage of abandon...
If he is really new to Ada, not sure he will understand this sentence,  
hihihi.

One Minute Silence

...

.....

Rest in peace AdaHome,
We will all miss you for eternity
“So say we all!”

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Marc A. Criley]

On 05/20/2010 06:17 PM, Gautier write-only wrote:
> Other good places to chase resources are also non Ada-centric sites:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/?&fq[]=trove%3A163
> http://freshmeat.net/tags/ada

While not so much an explicit *resource* site, the Ada sub-reddit 
(http://www.reddit.com/r/ada) contains links to articles, discussions, 
software libraries, projects, and is just a potpourri of Ada goodness. 
Just start paging back through the submissions...

Submissions are welcome from any and all Ada fans.

Marc A. Criley
Moderator, Ada Sub-reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/ada

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[tmoran]

>The language is good for embedded, real-time, and safety-critical
>software
>where high reliability is required.  It is often used in the space
   I run a TV channel with Ada.  It handles downloading video files,
loading from DVDs and timing shows, inserting ad-size clips, archiving
old shows, scheduling (and notifying TV Guide et al), and of course
playing on Comcast and UVerse.  Reliability, concurrency, real-time
(one second or less), catching exceptions, are important.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 21 May 2010 02:30:52 +0200, Marc A. Criley <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> a  
écrit:
> While not so much an explicit *resource* site, the Ada sub-reddit  
> (http://www.reddit.com/r/ada) contains links to articles, discussions,  
> software libraries, projects, and is just a potpourri of Ada goodness.  
> Just start paging back through the submissions...
>
> Submissions are welcome from any and all Ada fans.
Please, Welcome for any kind of project or is it restricted to GPL project  
?
I keep this in my bookmarks, perhaps this may be useful in the futur  
(well, to me, I guess it is already useful for many people).
Also, is it english only or is there some provision to inform about  
articles in french ?
Thanks for the tip

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Randy Brukardt]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1300 bytes --]

"Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.vc0f0zz8xmjfy8@garhos...
>I remember Jean-Pierre Rosen, telling how some people think there is not 
>library available in Ada for this and that. He explained most of of times, 
>people was surprised when he gave them a link to the material they were 
>seeking for.
>
>Here is a list of bindings which may be of interest (I'm not using this 
>material myself, so cannot tell more):
>http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html

The archive site contains ancient web pages of dubious value. Look on the 
main AdaIC web site for such things, particularly in the links section: 
http://www.adaic.com/links/index.html in the classifications "Software 
Libraries" and "Development Tools". (And tell me about any broken links.)

Another way to find specific Ada stuff is to use the Ada-wide search engine: 
http://www.adaic.com/site/wide-search.html, which attempts to search all 
sites with known Ada information (this corresponds to the sites linked from 
the AdaIC site). It uses a search engine written in Ada (of course); we 
crawl all of the sites at least monthly. As of the crawl completed this 
morning, there were 59,172 Ada-related pages in the index.

                                     Randy.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Randy Brukardt]

"Gautier write-only" <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:20261ff7-36bd-483e-9d79-af3ab44e2c7f@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>That's exactly the problem with web homes: they need lots of
>maintenance.
>Once the time for it is gone, they become ghost homes - to begin with
>dead links...
>I could cite around 4-5 absolutely definitive enthusiastic "Ada homes"
>at different stage of abandon...

I think there are 4 that I know of. Unless you are also including AdaIC, 
which is definitely not abandoned, just suffering from the lack of new 
material. If you know of something that ought to be linked on AdaIC, by all 
means send it in.

And keep in mind that the archives at the AdaIC is generally ancient content 
that we preserved from the old government run AdaIC. Most of it is of 
dubious value (a few things, like the on-line Ada 83 RM, get a lot of use 
and still have value to some). But I don't like deleting stuff when storage 
is essentially free. If it has that "archives.adaic.com" address, its in the 
archives. Stick to www.adaic.org or www.adaic.com for modern stuff.

                            Randy. (Webmaster of the moment for AdaIC).

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 23:29:36 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> I would say it is good for core implementations, where no higher level  
> paradigms was shown to be better suited ; that is, most of system-level  
> and most of core application-level. For higher levels, there is a galaxy  
> specific-domain-languages which may be better.

1. They are not higher level. It is a usual misconception. To be closer to
the application domain /= higher level. Usually domain-specific languages
are of an extremely low level. You normally are unable to develop higher
(rather any) abstractions there. You are limited to the built in ones.
Domain specific languages usually  lack type system, certainly have no
user-defined types (ADTs), provide no mechanisms for decompositions etc.
You can consider it on the examples of UML, XML, SQL, Simulink etc.

2. They aren't better, at least from the SW engineering POV. Usually you
can quickly get the job done for some simple or else well-decoupled case.
Far more often you get 80% done. But the rest 20% is almost impossible to
accomplish, because these languages are too specialized, too weak,
unsuitable for integration, design of large systems, unmaintainable. You
will have to write some insertions in a "working" language like Ada. E.g.
S-function for Simulink etc. This might work, or not, because there is a
question of the ugly SW architecture these languages would impose on your
solution.

I don't believe in domain-specific languages, 4GL, 5GL etc. I have seen too
many of them.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[jonathan]

On May 20, 1:53 pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
> I'm new to Ada, but not to programming in general. Decided to learn a new
> language, and Ada was of interest to me. Am enjoying the language so far -
> using GNAT GPL nad Coronado's old tutorial.
>
> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..
> --
> Duke
> *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***


Here's some of the best introductory material I've come
across recently:

http://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/events/AdaEvent/abstracts.html#researchada

Slides from 4 talks. They're all good, but I would start
with Robert Dewar's "What's New in the World of Ada".
Page 5 should warm the heart of any Ada programmer. I
also liked Erhard Ploedereder's  "Ada in Research and
Education, an Experience Report" - much to learn from
the comparison with Java.

And 2 classics:

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2000/08/mccormick.html
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2008/05/0805Sutton.html

Jonathan

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-20, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 01:17:45 +0200, Gautier write-only  
><gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> a �crit:
>> I could cite around 4-5 absolutely definitive enthusiastic "Ada homes"
>> at different stage of abandon...
> If he is really new to Ada, not sure he will understand this sentence,  
> hihihi.
>
> One Minute Silence
>
> ...
>
> .....
>
> Rest in peace AdaHome,
> We will all miss you for eternity
> ?So say we all!?
>

Well, _I am_ new to Ada, and have no clue what you guys mean with this "Ada
Homes" thing. I bet its a good story though... ;)
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-21, jonathan <johnscpg@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 1:53�pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> I'm new to Ada, but not to programming in general. Decided to learn a new
>> language, and Ada was of interest to me. Am enjoying the language so far -
>> using GNAT GPL nad Coronado's old tutorial.
>>
>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what area(s) does
>> it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc? TIA..
>> --
>> Duke
>> *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***
>
>
> Here's some of the best introductory material I've come
> across recently:
>
> http://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/events/AdaEvent/abstracts.html#researchada
>
> Slides from 4 talks. They're all good, but I would start
> with Robert Dewar's "What's New in the World of Ada".
> Page 5 should warm the heart of any Ada programmer. I
> also liked Erhard Ploedereder's  "Ada in Research and
> Education, an Experience Report" - much to learn from
> the comparison with Java.
>
> And 2 classics:
>
> http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2000/08/mccormick.html
> http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2008/05/0805Sutton.html
>
> Jonathan

Thanks for the URLs! I visited
http://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/events/AdaEvent/abstracts.html#researchada

To begin with. Looks like I should be learning SPARK? or should I start with
Ada, _then_ graduate to SPARK?
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-21, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> "Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
> news:op.vc0f0zz8xmjfy8@garhos...
>>I remember Jean-Pierre Rosen, telling how some people think there is not 
>>library available in Ada for this and that. He explained most of of times, 
>>people was surprised when he gave them a link to the material they were 
>>seeking for.
>>
>>Here is a list of bindings which may be of interest (I'm not using this 
>>material myself, so cannot tell more):
>>http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html
>
> The archive site contains ancient web pages of dubious value. Look on the 
> main AdaIC web site for such things, particularly in the links section: 
> http://www.adaic.com/links/index.html in the classifications "Software 
> Libraries" and "Development Tools". (And tell me about any broken links.)
>
> Another way to find specific Ada stuff is to use the Ada-wide search engine: 
> http://www.adaic.com/site/wide-search.html, which attempts to search all 
> sites with known Ada information (this corresponds to the sites linked from 
> the AdaIC site). It uses a search engine written in Ada (of course); we 
> crawl all of the sites at least monthly. As of the crawl completed this 
> morning, there were 59,172 Ada-related pages in the index.
>
>                                      Randy.
>
>

Nice site referenced above! Followed a few links -- now I know about "Ada
Home", I think? Must be the Magnus Kempe Saga? Whatever... ;)
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-20, Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 8:58�pm, Duke Normandin wrote:
>
>> >http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html
>>
>> That URL is not much good - all the links are dead!
>>
>> Perhaps Ada should have a _real_ home, where it is guaranteed that noob
>> students, and noob old farts like me will indeed find the resources needed
>> to make Ada shine! ;)
>
> That's exactly the problem with web homes: they need lots of
> maintenance.

Every web site worth having require maintenance...

> Once the time for it is gone, they become ghost homes - to begin with
> dead links...
> I could cite around 4-5 absolutely definitive enthusiastic "Ada homes"
> at different stage of abandon...
> The wiki's Manuel is citing are in a better shape because of a better
> concept.
> Other good places to chase resources are also non Ada-centric sites:

Very good reason why the Ada community should encourage one "official" Home
with links to various community resources - an "official" Ada "Information
Booth".

Thanks for the URLs!
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 21 May 2010 16:21:55 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> Thanks for the URLs! I visited
> http://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/events/AdaEvent/abstracts.html#researchada
>
> To begin with. Looks like I should be learning SPARK? or should I start  
> with
> Ada, _then_ graduate to SPARK?
It's up to you to choose, while if I may, would suggest you start with  
classic Ada first, seems obvious.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-21, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 16:21:55 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
> �crit:
>> Thanks for the URLs! I visited
>> http://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/events/AdaEvent/abstracts.html#researchada
>>
>> To begin with. Looks like I should be learning SPARK? or should I start  
>> with
>> Ada, _then_ graduate to SPARK?
> It's up to you to choose, while if I may, would suggest you start with  
> classic Ada first, seems obvious.
>

You bet! That's the route  was planning on taking. Have a good weekend!
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Warren]

Ludovic Brenta expounded in news:87d3wqbayp.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org:

> Duke Normandin writes:
>> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what
>>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching,
>>>> graphics, etc? TIA..

It's ok to be curious but this begs the question of why 
it is important for it to be "popular"?

Do you have to sell it's use at your company?

Are you considering the availability of tools and/or 
source code?

Or, are you interested in it for your own (or open sourced)
projects?

Depending on the answers to some of these factors, 
popularity may not be important. 

IOW, if you need an excellent tool, then embrace Ada. Let 
the compiler work for you, instead of some other allowing 
more "shooting in the foot". Or real time "scripts" finding
your problems one at a time when the user goes to use it.

That reminds me of a low-calibre programmer and VB -- oh
the horror of that...

>>> Ada was never widely used. It could have been, because it's one of
>>> the all time great general purpose languages. There's probably no
>>> better or more flexible HLL. However, various factors combined to
>>> make it a niche language and it doesn't have any hope of breaking
>>> out of that niche or getting the use and exposure it deserves.

While probably true, there is always hope. The future
is murkey at best. With more and more software moving
into automobiles etc., safety's profile might push this
agenda a little bit.

> - people who spend the effort to learn Ada show they are real software
>   engineers.  A real software enginer bases their decisions on
>   technical merits, not popularity.

My point above, in a nutshell.

> - Sloppy programmers avoid Ada, therefore Ada helps avoid sloppy
>   programmers.

They're more lazy than I am. ;-)

Warren

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Peter C. Chapin]

Duke Normandin wrote:

> To begin with. Looks like I should be learning SPARK? or should I start with
> Ada, _then_ graduate to SPARK?

It depends on what you are trying to do, but Ada is a more general language.
Unless you have a specific need to use SPARK I would suggest starting with
full Ada.

SPARK is a specialized language designed for high integrity and safety
critical programming. It's a very restricted dialect of Ada with additional
annotations (in the form of Ada comments) and a corresponding tool set to
process those annotations. Because the executable part of SPARK is so
restricted, it is not a very convenient language to use for many
applications. While it's great at what it does, it should be applied only
where it is really needed.

One of SPARK's strengths is that you don't have to write the entire program
using it. You can use SPARK for critical "core" algorithms and use full Ada
for the less critical components. Of course deciding what is and is
not "critical" can be a tricky issue.

Peter

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> 
> It depends on what you are trying to do, but Ada is a more general language.
> Unless you have a specific need to use SPARK I would suggest starting with
> full Ada.

There's also the fact that everything for learning SPARK that I've seen assumes 
familiarity with Ada.

On the other hand, if one learns the discipline needed to use SPARK well 1st, it 
will certainly benefit one's use of other languages, including Ada.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"C's solution to this [variable-sized array parameters] has real
problems, and people who are complaining about safety definitely
have a point."
Dennis Ritchie
25

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Marc A. Criley]

On 05/20/2010 09:17 PM, Yannick Duchï¿œne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Please, Welcome for any kind of project or is it restricted to GPL
> project ?
> I keep this in my bookmarks, perhaps this may be useful in the futur
> (well, to me, I guess it is already useful for many people).
> Also, is it english only or is there some provision to inform about
> articles in french ?
> Thanks for the tip

There's no limitations about what gets posted, so long as it is about 
Ada. Proprietary, open source, commercial, hobby, etc. does not matter, 
the Ada sub-reddit is simply for any items of interest to Ada advocates 
and practitioners.

One can submit non-English postings to it, although one is free to 
create their own sub-reddit on whatever subject, or using whatever 
lingua franca, they wish.

Marc A. Criley
Moderation, Ada Sub-reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/ada

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-21, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ludovic Brenta expounded in news:87d3wqbayp.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org:
>
>> Duke Normandin writes:
>>> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>>>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what
>>>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching,
>>>>> graphics, etc? TIA..
>
> It's ok to be curious but this begs the question of why 
> it is important for it to be "popular"?
>
> Do you have to sell it's use at your company?
>
> Are you considering the availability of tools and/or 
> source code?
>
> Or, are you interested in it for your own (or open sourced)
> projects?
>
> Depending on the answers to some of these factors, 
> popularity may not be important. 

Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-21, Peter C. Chapin <pcc482719@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duke Normandin wrote:
>
>> To begin with. Looks like I should be learning SPARK? or should I start with
>> Ada, _then_ graduate to SPARK?
>
> It depends on what you are trying to do, but Ada is a more general language.
> Unless you have a specific need to use SPARK I would suggest starting with
> full Ada.
>
> SPARK is a specialized language designed for high integrity and safety
> critical programming. It's a very restricted dialect of Ada with additional
> annotations (in the form of Ada comments) and a corresponding tool set to
> process those annotations. Because the executable part of SPARK is so
> restricted, it is not a very convenient language to use for many
> applications. While it's great at what it does, it should be applied only
> where it is really needed.
>
> One of SPARK's strengths is that you don't have to write the entire program
> using it. You can use SPARK for critical "core" algorithms and use full Ada
> for the less critical components. Of course deciding what is and is
> not "critical" can be a tricky issue.
>
> Peter
>

Thanks for putting SPARK in the proper perspective for me. I guessed that it
might be a specialized incarnation of Ada, but wasn't quite sure.
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:07:46 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> Thanks for putting SPARK in the proper perspective for me. I guessed  
> that it
> might be a specialized incarnation of Ada, but wasn't quite sure.
This is far more strict and has far more requirements on the design, it  
takes really more long to create an application with SPARK and full  
validity conditions proofs. That was the reason to suggest you to start  
with Ada, instead of SPARK. Don't bother any way, as on the way to learn  
Ada, you will also learn part of SPARK, as the latter relies on the former.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 21 May 2010 22:11:34 +0200, Peter C. Chapin <pcc482719@gmail.com>  
a écrit:
> SPARK is a specialized language designed for high integrity and safety
> critical programming.
With due respect, I was just to say I don't agree with the critical  
condition which appears in all wordings talking about SPARK. This (SPARK)  
is just nice when you want to proof something works, when you want to  
proofs there will not be any runtime error or specification violation.  
Obviously, this is welcome in critical areas... while not only.

There is no need to deal with a critical area to seek for that : this may  
simply be because you want better as much as it is possible or because you  
want something to be well-done as much as it is possible. The exact same  
reasons you have to choose a typed language instead of a non-typed one.  
Many people do things, in some manner, with non-typed language. Just the  
way its done differs, and not every body have the same requirements. Some  
have requirements which makes them say they don't need typed language.  
Some don't agree with that. This depends on what the author wish.

By the way, the definition of hat a critical area is, does not seems  
clear. Some ones may say “this is critical” while some other will not.

I like to say SPARK is a step above types and declarations. This seems to  
better cover its purpose, in my humble opinion.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:05:33 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in  
> a
> museum.
It had a long live, and will have a long live again.
The goo word could be “persistent”.

It started at the end of the years 1970, first standardized in 1983,  
revised in someway, the again revised in 1995 with many additions which  
make it the first standardized OO language (while Ada does not handle OO  
the same way as others), then again revised in 2005, and the next revision  
is planned for 2012 or 2015 (I feel lost with this date... should be 2015,  
while many people are talking about 2012).

It was modern, in its early age, starting with Ada 83. It is unlikely that  
something which was ahead in 1983 and which in 1983, already embedded  
paradigms still totally unknown of most of 2010 languages, it is unlikely  
such a thing can be referred to as a “fossil”.

Don't be afraid for that. Not popular, does not implies bad (and popular  
does not implies good).

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-21, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:07:46 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
> �crit:
>> Thanks for putting SPARK in the proper perspective for me. I guessed  
>> that it
>> might be a specialized incarnation of Ada, but wasn't quite sure.
> This is far more strict and has far more requirements on the design, it  
> takes really more long to create an application with SPARK and full  
> validity conditions proofs. That was the reason to suggest you to start  
> with Ada, instead of SPARK. Don't bother any way, as on the way to learn  
> Ada, you will also learn part of SPARK, as the latter relies on the former.
>

Good point!
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> 
> It started at the end of the years 1970, first standardized in 1983, 

Ada was 1st standardized in 1980, MIL-STD-1815 (1980 Dec 10).

-- 
Jeff Carter
"C's solution to this [variable-sized array parameters] has real
problems, and people who are complaining about safety definitely
have a point."
Dennis Ritchie
25

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-21, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:05:33 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
> �crit:
>> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
>> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in  
>> a
>> museum.
> It had a long live, and will have a long live again.
> The goo word could be ?persistent?.
>
> It started at the end of the years 1970, first standardized in 1983,  
> revised in someway, the again revised in 1995 with many additions which  
> make it the first standardized OO language (while Ada does not handle OO  
> the same way as others), then again revised in 2005, and the next revision  
> is planned for 2012 or 2015 (I feel lost with this date... should be 2015,  
> while many people are talking about 2012).
>
> It was modern, in its early age, starting with Ada 83. It is unlikely that  
> something which was ahead in 1983 and which in 1983, already embedded  
> paradigms still totally unknown of most of 2010 languages, it is unlikely  
> such a thing can be referred to as a ?fossil?.
>
> Don't be afraid for that. Not popular, does not implies bad (and popular  
> does not implies good).

I didn't mean to say that Ada _was_ a fossil! When I originally asked the
question, I simply wanted to be sure that I was not in fact about to embark
on an archaeological expedition. ;) 

-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:

> On 2010-05-20, Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 20, 8:58 pm, Duke Normandin wrote:
>>
>>> >http://archive.adaic.com/docs/flyers/free-bindings.html
>>>
>>> That URL is not much good - all the links are dead!
>>>
>>> Perhaps Ada should have a _real_ home, where it is guaranteed that noob
>>> students, and noob old farts like me will indeed find the resources needed
>>> to make Ada shine! ;)
>>
>> That's exactly the problem with web homes: they need lots of
>> maintenance.
>
> Every web site worth having require maintenance...
>
>> Once the time for it is gone, they become ghost homes - to begin with
>> dead links...
>> I could cite around 4-5 absolutely definitive enthusiastic "Ada homes"
>> at different stage of abandon...
>> The wiki's Manuel is citing are in a better shape because of a better
>> concept.
>> Other good places to chase resources are also non Ada-centric sites:
>
> Very good reason why the Ada community should encourage one "official" Home
> with links to various community resources - an "official" Ada "Information
> Booth".

www.adaic.com

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Peter C. Chapin]

Duke Normandin wrote:

> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.

Ada is definitely not a fossil, nor is it likely to become a fossil in the
near future. It's true that Ada doesn't have the tool, library, and community
support that C++ and Java enjoys (in terms of sheer quantity at least), but
there are definitely all three of those things available for Ada. Also the
language has an updated standard in the works.

If you are looking at functional languages have you considered OCaml? It has a
lively community. An alternative might be F#, Microsoft's ML-like functional
language for .NET. It's shiny and new, and Microsoft fully supports it with
Visual Studio 2010. It even runs on Linux/Mono. Other than that I don't know
much about it. :)

Peter

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-22, Peter C. Chapin <pcc482719@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duke Normandin wrote:
>
>> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
>> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
>> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
>> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
>> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.
>
> Ada is definitely not a fossil, nor is it likely to become a fossil in the
> near future. It's true that Ada doesn't have the tool, library, and community
> support that C++ and Java enjoys (in terms of sheer quantity at least), but
> there are definitely all three of those things available for Ada. Also the
> language has an updated standard in the works.

I'm seeing that Ada is alive and well, and still "strutting her stuff" ;)
Just had to be sure, is all....

> If you are looking at functional languages have you considered OCaml? It has a
> lively community. An alternative might be F#, Microsoft's ML-like functional
> language for .NET. It's shiny and new, and Microsoft fully supports it with
> Visual Studio 2010. It even runs on Linux/Mono. Other than that I don't know
> much about it. :)

I quit smoking Camel cigarettes 10 years ago. Whenever I  go near the OCaml
language, I get antsy for a cigarette. ;) Haskell is too much like "a
hassle". OTOH, Miranda conjures up fond memories of long ago ... ;)
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Gautier write-only]

> >I could cite around 4-5 absolutely definitive enthusiastic "Ada homes"
> >at different stage of abandon...

Randy:

> I think there are 4 that I know of. Unless you are also including AdaIC,

No!

> which is definitely not abandoned, just suffering from the lack of new
> material.

Gautier

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Anonymous]

> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
> museum.

No risk there, Ada was a fossil in 1983. But it's one of those fossils we
love and it's just too good to die.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-23, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
>> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
>> museum.
>
> No risk there, Ada was a fossil in 1983. But it's one of those fossils we
> love and it's just too good to die.
>

;)

I'm twice Ada's age, and feeling a little fossil-ly myself. Hope I can hang
in there like Ada has. ;)
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> Ada continues to attrack me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
> ...)  ;)
These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what  
are “domain specific languages”... well, not exactly, but close.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:05:33 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in  
> a
> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.
I suppose you know about Haskel, don't you ? Seems to have a wider  
community if I'm not wrong.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:05:33 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
> �crit:
>> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
>> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in  
>> a
>> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
>> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
>> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.
> I suppose you know about Haskel, don't you ? Seems to have a wider  
> community if I'm not wrong.
>

I've looked at it - too slow! The community seems more "chatty" than what is
the case with some other languages.  However, IMO, an active NG does not,
IMO, indicate the usage a language receives in problem solving.  The Ada
community, e.g.  cannot be characterized as chatty, but that very same
community is probably very big, very experienced, and very busy - too busy
to be lurking in a NG.  ;) I'm the only noob here from what I can see.

My hunch is that Haskell is nowhere close to being a problem-solver that Ada
appears to be.
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
> �crit:
>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
>> ...)  ;)
> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what  
> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close.
>

Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
only good for .....
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Bruno Le Hyaric]

Can I animate the debate with one opensource examples of Ada/Spark
usage from the NSA :
http://www.adacore.com/home/products/sparkpro/tokeneer/

Even if I did't have the time to review the whole project, it seems to
be a very good demonstration
of Ada/Spark usage with code generation, formal verification with Z
notation and cost effectiveness!

By the way, in my opininon, any computer language is not really
important, and should not be in the future...
only the deep understanding of concepts manipulated throw languages
are important.
So, choose one procedural language, one object oriented, one
functional, one formal...and so on... then learn them all!
Next you have to choose the right language to answer the problem
right.

To finish, Ada is not bad, but I wouldn't base my professional career
on it.


One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
on the JSF aircraft project?


Bruno.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-23, Bruno Le Hyaric <bruno.lehyaric@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can I animate the debate with one opensource examples of Ada/Spark
> usage from the NSA :
> http://www.adacore.com/home/products/sparkpro/tokeneer/
>
> Even if I did't have the time to review the whole project, it seems to
> be a very good demonstration
> of Ada/Spark usage with code generation, formal verification with Z
> notation and cost effectiveness!
>
> By the way, in my opininon, any computer language is not really
> important, and should not be in the future...
> only the deep understanding of concepts manipulated throw languages
> are important.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                |
                                                V
                  I'm not following what you mean with this phrase? 

> So, choose one procedural language, one object oriented, one
> functional, one formal...and so on... then learn them all!
> Next you have to choose the right language to answer the problem
> right.

The right tool for the job, etc etc

> To finish, Ada is not bad, but I wouldn't base my professional career
> on it.

I don't suppose that there are too many Ada shops around anymore. A bit like
COBOL that way.  ;)

> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
> on the JSF aircraft project?

Because they're all a bunch of masochists? They're looking for a major FU
down the road? Who knows? 
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[(see below)]

On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82, "Duke
Normandin" <dukeofperl@ml1.net> wrote:

> On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a
>> �crit:
>>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
>>> ...)  ;)
>> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what
>> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close.
>> 
> 
> Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
> only good for .....

Not much at all.

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-23, (see below) <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82, "Duke
> Normandin" <dukeofperl@ml1.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a
>>> �crit:
>>>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
>>>> ...)  ;)
>>> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what
>>> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close.
>>> 
>> 
>> Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
>> only good for .....
>
> Not much at all.
>

Yeah, right! Whatever... ;)
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[(see below)]

On 23/05/2010 20:10, in article g4fKn.4602$Z6.1681@edtnps82, "Duke
Normandin" <dukeofperl@ml1.net> wrote:

> On 2010-05-23, (see below) <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82, "Duke
>> Normandin" <dukeofperl@ml1.net> wrote:
>>> Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
>>> only good for .....
>> 
>> Not much at all.
>> 
> 
> Yeah, right! Whatever... ;)

Tsk. 
Someone of our advanced years really shouldn't
be caught dead \/\/hatevering. 8-)

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-23, (see below) <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/05/2010 20:10, in article g4fKn.4602$Z6.1681@edtnps82, "Duke
> Normandin" <dukeofperl@ml1.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-23, (see below) <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82, "Duke
>>> Normandin" <dukeofperl@ml1.net> wrote:
>>>> Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
>>>> only good for .....
>>> 
>>> Not much at all.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, right! Whatever... ;)
>
> Tsk. 
> Someone of our advanced years really shouldn't
> be caught dead \/\/hatevering. 8-)
>

Advanced Years!!  \/\/haaaatEVER! ;)

Miranda doesn't think so.. :D
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
> 
> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
> on the JSF aircraft project?

Money.

Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"[I]f we should ever separate, my little plum,
I want to give you one little bit of fatherly advice. ... Never
give a sucker an even break."
Poppy
97

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>> 
>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>
> Money.
>
> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>

That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 
Toilet-flushing software may not matter much, but the various automated
systems used in a modern transportation should be above greed's narsty reach
- but apparently not.
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin]

On May 23, 7:32 pm, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82, "Duke
>
> Normandin" <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
> > On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duchêne <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> >> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> a
> >> écrit:
> >>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
> >>> ...)  ;)
> >> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what
> >> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close.
>
> > Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
> > only good for .....
>
> Not much at all.
>
> --
> Bill Findlay
> <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Hi Bill,

Why do you say that?... One of my favourite static analysis tools is
written in ML...it's definitely useful!

-- Martin

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:

> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>> 
>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>
>> Money.
>>
>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>
>
> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 

It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
and writing good software, that's what would happen.

It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
client's job to set the terms of the contract.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:
> 
>> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>>
>>> Money.
>>>
>>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>
>> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
>> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
>> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 
> 
> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
> and writing good software, that's what would happen.
> 
> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
> client's job to set the terms of the contract.

Nice theory, not working in practice. Imagine your baker trying making as
much money as possible and you setting terms on the bread's ingredients. 

It is the fault of the CS unable to deliver a sound background for software
engineering. Which is more shamanism than engineering. This in turn makes
it impossible to impose *reasonable* regulations on what software is and
how it is to be engineered. (Unreasonable regulations are plenty, of
course) Meaningful regulations exist, for example, for bakers, so when you
buy bread it is bread. When you buy software it can be anything. Because
nobody knows for sure how to do it "right". It is "our" word against the
word of c-java-dot-net-UML camp. The latter is far more vocal. So what do
you expect DoD to do?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[(see below)]

On 24/05/2010 08:55, in article
c7fcdde0-6644-4202-803a-42efff00c8a2@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, "Martin"
<martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> On May 23, 7:32�pm, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82, "Duke
>> 
>> Normandin" <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
>>> On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>>> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> a
>>>> �crit:
>>>>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
>>>>> ...) �;)
>>>> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what
>>>> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close.
>> 
>>> Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
>>> only good for .....
>> 
>> Not much at all.
>> 
>> --
>> Bill Findlay
>> <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Why do you say that?... One of my favourite static analysis tools is
> written in ML...it's definitely useful!

Note that I did not say "good for nothing". 8-)
-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Bryan]

On May 21, 7:05 pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
> On 2010-05-21, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ludovic Brenta expounded innews:87d3wqbayp.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org:
>
> >> Duke Normandin writes:
> >>> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what
> >>>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching,
> >>>>> graphics, etc? TIA..
>
> > It's ok to be curious but this begs the question of why
> > it is important for it to be "popular"?
>
> > Do you have to sell it's use at your company?
>
> > Are you considering the availability of tools and/or
> > source code?
>
> > Or, are you interested in it for your own (or open sourced)
> > projects?
>
> > Depending on the answers to some of these factors,
> > popularity may not be important.
>
> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.
> --

By all means I say learn Ada at least as a learning exercise.  It's a
great language that you can grow with over time.  GNAT is a great tool
set as well, it provides you everything you need in the beginning.
And let us not forget that some very interesting projects are built
with Ada commercially!

My only word of caution is to make sure you have a "popular" industry
language on your tool belt as well.  Try as I have, I've never been
able to find work with Ada.  When I was in Asia-Pacific, Ada was
unheard of.  In North America I find Ada is more well known, but
without ten years of Ada industry experience, most employers are
simply not interested in talking to candidates. Despite all of its
faults, C++ has kept me employed and working on interesting
projects. :)   Multiple interpretations on C++ can be derived from
that last statement.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-24, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>
>> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>>>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>>>
>>>> Money.
>>>>
>>>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>>>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>>>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>>>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>>
>>> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
>>> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
>>> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 
>> 
>> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
>> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
>> and writing good software, that's what would happen.
>> 
>> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
>> client's job to set the terms of the contract.
>
> Nice theory, not working in practice. Imagine your baker trying making as
> much money as possible and you setting terms on the bread's ingredients. 
>
> It is the fault of the CS unable to deliver a sound background for software
> engineering. Which is more shamanism than engineering. This in turn makes
> it impossible to impose *reasonable* regulations on what software is and
> how it is to be engineered. (Unreasonable regulations are plenty, of
> course) Meaningful regulations exist, for example, for bakers, so when you
> buy bread it is bread. When you buy software it can be anything. Because
> nobody knows for sure how to do it "right". It is "our" word against the
> word of c-java-dot-net-UML camp. The latter is far more vocal. So what do
> you expect DoD to do?
>

I totally agree! and putting your points into a particular perspective - it
doesn't make _any_ difference to the health and welfare of this planet if
the next video game to hit the shelves is buggier than hell, because it was
written in whatever, taking 3 times as long to write than what it could have
taken using saner tools. However the (programming) flavor-of-the-decade is
set, so "industry follows suit" like good little sheep.

which leads me to academia!. Some egg-head(s) get it into their skulls that
this or that language is cool, so some university starts to push flavor A,
at the expense of other "industry-proven" technology.  CS students are
exposed to this "new" sweetheart technology to the exclusion of all others,
including day-to-day brainwashing.  A few years after graduation, these same
CS students are managers somewhere, talking to clueless bean-counters about
how great this or that technology is, and how it should be used to program
various aircraft flight systems et al; and automobile acceleration-control
software (or whatever); and the list goes on.  So it's another
"chicken-or-the-egg" thing.  Meanwhile, Ada, M Technology (aka Mumps),
COBOL, the latter 2 having billions of lines of code still extent, useful
and necessary, are relegated to academia's antiquities museum.  Bullshit! 
and the story keeps repeating itself over and over again.  Anyway, this is
totally OT, so I had better quit while I'm ahead.  ;)
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-24, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:
>
>> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>>
>>> Money.
>>>
>>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>>
>>
>> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
>> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
>> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 
>
> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
> and writing good software, that's what would happen.

I don't buy it! If if can't make money using the correct tool for the job,
thereby generating a safe, workable product, then don't bid the job! Then go
out and get provably safe technology, and the best people that you can to
use it. Work ethics and pride of workmanship, two values that have gone out
the door for the most part, along time ago. Now its all about marketing,
shmooze(sp), packaging and making as much money with the least effort. It's
all a bunch of bullshit, and so are the products.

> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
> client's job to set the terms of the contract.

Spoken like a true capitalist bean-counter - which is OK provided you are
not screwing up the environment, and otherwise endangering people's lives
and well-being in the process.
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-24, Bryan <brobinson.eng@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 7:05�pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-05-21, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Ludovic Brenta expounded innews:87d3wqbayp.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org:
>>
>> >> Duke Normandin writes:
>> >>> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
>> >>>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what
>> >>>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching,
>> >>>>> graphics, etc? TIA..
>>
>> > It's ok to be curious but this begs the question of why
>> > it is important for it to be "popular"?
>>
>> > Do you have to sell it's use at your company?
>>
>> > Are you considering the availability of tools and/or
>> > source code?
>>
>> > Or, are you interested in it for your own (or open sourced)
>> > projects?
>>
>> > Depending on the answers to some of these factors,
>> > popularity may not be important.
>>
>> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
>> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
>> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
>> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
>> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.
>> --
>
> By all means I say learn Ada at least as a learning exercise.  It's a
> great language that you can grow with over time.  GNAT is a great tool
> set as well, it provides you everything you need in the beginning.
> And let us not forget that some very interesting projects are built
> with Ada commercially!
>
> My only word of caution is to make sure you have a "popular" industry
> language on your tool belt as well.  Try as I have, I've never been
> able to find work with Ada.  When I was in Asia-Pacific, Ada was
> unheard of.  In North America I find Ada is more well known, but
> without ten years of Ada industry experience, most employers are
> simply not interested in talking to candidates. Despite all of its
> faults, C++ has kept me employed and working on interesting
> projects. :)   Multiple interpretations on C++ can be derived from
> that last statement.

I appreciate your candor and insight - thanks! 
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin]

On May 24, 1:05 pm, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/05/2010 08:55, in article
> c7fcdde0-6644-4202-803a-42efff00c...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, "Martin"
>
>
>
> <martin.do...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 7:32 pm, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82, "Duke
>
> >> Normandin" <dukeofp...@ml1.net> wrote:
> >>> On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duchêne <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> >>>> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...@ml1.net> a
> >>>> écrit:
> >>>>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie
> >>>>> ...)  ;)
> >>>> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what
> >>>> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close.
>
> >>> Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore
> >>> only good for .....
>
> >> Not much at all.
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Findlay
> >> <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk
>
> > Hi Bill,
>
> > Why do you say that?... One of my favourite static analysis tools is
> > written in ML...it's definitely useful!
>
> Note that I did not say "good for nothing". 8-)
> --
> Bill Findlay
> <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

I took "Not much at all" to "tend toward" nothing! :-)

I rather like functional languages - you have to rotate you mind
through 90 degrees to use them if you're used to procedural languages
but once you can think in that way, it seems very elegant and natural
to me.

-- Martin

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 24 May 2010 09:55:37 +0200, Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>  
a écrit:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Why do you say that?... One of my favourite static analysis tools is
> written in ML...it's definitely useful!
>
> -- Martin
Which one please ? Can you be explicit ?

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin]

On May 24, 2:28 pm, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Mon, 24 May 2010 09:55:37 +0200, Martin <martin.do...@btopenworld.com>  
> a écrit:> Hi Bill,
>
> > Why do you say that?... One of my favourite static analysis tools is
> > written in ML...it's definitely useful!
>
> > -- Martin
>
> Which one please ? Can you be explicit ?
>
> --
> There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

PolySpace - it used MLton.

-- Martin

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 24 May 2010 15:40:50 +0200, Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>  
a écrit:
> PolySpace - it used MLton.
>
> -- Martin
Re-Please, How does it compares to SPARK ? (providing a comparison is  
meaningful, otherwise, just tell)


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Luis Espinal]

In article <7GwJn.4712$z%6.3258@edtnps83>, Duke Normandin says...
>
>Thanks for the URLs! I visited
>http://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/events/AdaEvent/abstracts.html#researchada
>
>To begin with. Looks like I should be learning SPARK? or should I start with
>Ada, _then_ graduate to SPARK?


I think you should learn either (SPARK or Ada), or maybe both (probably this is
what you should do). In that case, I'd go with Ada first.

I took an Ada class on my 3rd year at university, and from then one, it was my
tool of choice (along with C++). I graduated, looked for Ada jobs, and could not
find much. I went to grad school all the while still looking for Ada jobs.
Eventually I settle to work with C++, and then with Java.

I've been programming in Java for 11 years - 15 if I count the playing-around I
did with it since it came up in 95. And now, finally I might be able to get a
chance to work in C/C++.

Still, every once in a while I search for Ada jobs. I keep seeing an opening for
a Sr. Ada programmer to assist in a conversion to C++. Plus I keep seeing that
people require X amount of years on Ada or C++ when hiring, so it is a
chicken-n-egg kind of thing.

Putting all that lamentation aside, and the fact that I've never worked with it,
I'd say that it is the most influential language I've had (with the Pascal
family of languages.)

Ever since I learned it, all other languages have felt a bit lacking when it
comes to develop software that is both 1) efficient and 2) looks and reads
correct. I think I'm a good software developer and engineer, and I honestly
don't think my skills would be as good as I think they are if it weren't because
of Ada.

Learning Ada is how I learned how to program correctly. This is strictly
anecdotal and personal, so take it with a grain of salt. But my suggestion will
be to learn Ada for the sake of it in the hope it will improve your skills and
craft, however good they are now.

If you happen to land a job in Ada, that will be an added bonus. Learning the
language and solving non-trivial problems with them, that's all the
justification one should need IMO.

Good luck.

- Luis Espinal.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-05-24, Luis Espinal <Luis_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <7GwJn.4712$z%6.3258@edtnps83>, Duke Normandin says...
>>
>>Thanks for the URLs! I visited
>>http://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/events/AdaEvent/abstracts.html#researchada
>>
>>To begin with. Looks like I should be learning SPARK? or should I start with
>>Ada, _then_ graduate to SPARK?
>
>
> I think you should learn either (SPARK or Ada), or maybe both (probably this is
> what you should do). In that case, I'd go with Ada first.
>
> I took an Ada class on my 3rd year at university, and from then one, it was my
> tool of choice (along with C++). I graduated, looked for Ada jobs, and could not
> find much. I went to grad school all the while still looking for Ada jobs.
> Eventually I settle to work with C++, and then with Java.
>
> I've been programming in Java for 11 years - 15 if I count the playing-around I
> did with it since it came up in 95. And now, finally I might be able to get a
> chance to work in C/C++.
>
> Still, every once in a while I search for Ada jobs. I keep seeing an opening for
> a Sr. Ada programmer to assist in a conversion to C++. Plus I keep seeing that
> people require X amount of years on Ada or C++ when hiring, so it is a
> chicken-n-egg kind of thing.
>
> Putting all that lamentation aside, and the fact that I've never worked with it,
> I'd say that it is the most influential language I've had (with the Pascal
> family of languages.)
>
> Ever since I learned it, all other languages have felt a bit lacking when it
> comes to develop software that is both 1) efficient and 2) looks and reads
> correct. I think I'm a good software developer and engineer, and I honestly
> don't think my skills would be as good as I think they are if it weren't because
> of Ada.
>
> Learning Ada is how I learned how to program correctly. This is strictly
> anecdotal and personal, so take it with a grain of salt. But my suggestion will
> be to learn Ada for the sake of it in the hope it will improve your skills and
> craft, however good they are now.
>
> If you happen to land a job in Ada, that will be an added bonus. Learning the
> language and solving non-trivial problems with them, that's all the
> justification one should need IMO.
>
> Good luck.
>
> - Luis Espinal.
>

Thank you Luis, for your insights. I can't help but feel sad and irritated
that a language as useful as Ada has been characterized to be, by you and
others, should not be more widely appreciated and used. I'm glad that I
don't _have to_ program for a living. I do it because I enjoy it - got the
bug in 1980. ;) BTW, do you know what language Ada is written in? I'd guess
C and asm.
-- 
Duke
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Bryan wrote:
> 
> C++ has kept me employed and working on interesting projects. :)

New Chinese proverb? "May you work on interesting projects."

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You can never forget too much about C++."
115

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 24 May 2010 21:34:24 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
écrit:
> bug in 1980. ;) BTW, do you know what language Ada is written in? I'd  
> guess
> C and asm.
Ada could not be written in C or asm, it is written in plain English. It  
was not translated because there are some much pages in the reference that  
every one ws afraid (just think about translating it into french...)

I stop to play the fool now :p

Ada compilers, could be written in C or asm ;) But Ada compilers are  
mostly written in ... Ada, of course. Just look at GNAT sources (big) to  
have an idea. There may be some tiny C stuff in GNAT Ada implementation or  
a bit of assembly in Janus Ada implementation, however, all are mostly  
written in Ada.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[John B. Matthews]

In article <op.vc77ejooxmjfy8@garhos>,
 Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Le Mon, 24 May 2010 21:34:24 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  
> écrit:
> > BTW, do you know what language Ada is written in? I'd  guess C and 
> > asm.
> [...]
> Ada compilers, could be written in C or asm ;) But Ada compilers are  
> mostly written in ... Ada, of course. Just look at GNAT sources (big) to  
> have an idea.

Good reading! :-)

<http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/ada/>

[...]
-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Yannick Duchï¿œne (Hibou57) wrote:
> 
> Ada compilers, could be written in C or asm ;) But Ada compilers are 
> mostly written in ... Ada, of course. Just look at GNAT sources (big) to 
> have an idea. There may be some tiny C stuff in GNAT Ada implementation 
> or a bit of assembly in Janus Ada implementation, however, all are 
> mostly written in Ada.

The Verdix compiler was started in C and later changed to Ada. This is where the 
comparison in http://www.adaic.org/whyada/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html comes from, one 
of the few hard data points in language comparisons.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You can never forget too much about C++."
115

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 00:21:56 +0200, Jeffrey R. Carter  
<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> a écrit:
> The Verdix compiler was started in C and later changed to Ada. This is  
> where the comparison in  
> http://www.adaic.org/whyada/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html comes from, one of  
> the few hard data points in language comparisons.
Never head about Verdix before. Thanks for that -> it goes in my  
bookmarks. Will read carefully soon.


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>
>> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>>>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>>>
>>>> Money.
>>>>
>>>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>>>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>>>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>>>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>>
>>> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
>>> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
>>> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 
>> 
>> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
>> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
>> and writing good software, that's what would happen.
>> 
>> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
>> client's job to set the terms of the contract.
>
> Nice theory, not working in practice. Imagine your baker trying making as
> much money as possible and you setting terms on the bread's ingredients. 

Not a valid comparison; I don't have nearly as much buying power as the
DOD.

A better comparison is a national supermarket chain negotiating with
several large bakery chains. And that does work much better than the DOD
vs the military contractors.

> It is the fault of the CS 

? Civil Servants? Computer Science?

> unable to deliver a sound background for software engineering. Which
> is more shamanism than engineering. 

If it's shamanism, then how are the computer science schools at fault?
"Worship Microsoft" sounds like good shamanism. It used to be "worship
IBM".

The complaint was that the contractors are greedy. Under capitalism, the
assumption is that _everyone_ is greedy, but the government sets the
rules so the societies best interest is served by everyone's greed.

It takes a long term view, and adequate social/political education on
everyone's part. _that's_ why it doesn't work; thinking is hard, most
people don't want to do it.

Just like writing good code in Ada is harder than writing sloppy code in
C. To bring this mildly back on topic.

> This in turn makes it impossible to impose *reasonable* regulations on
> what software is and how it is to be engineered. 

We don't need regulations, we need success oriented contracting.

Part of the problem is people don't know how to manage large systems;
that's why the air traffic control system is not replaced yet.

> (Unreasonable regulations are plenty, of course) Meaningful
> regulations exist, for example, for bakers, so when you buy bread it
> is bread. 

Depends; if I buy it at the local grocery store, it's more like plastic.
If I buy it at the farmer's market, then it is bread. The only
regulation involved is health; no bacteria or mold allowed. 

> When you buy software it can be anything. Because nobody knows for
> sure how to do it "right". 

It is much easier to measure results than to enforce process. But people
don't want to spend the time to do that either.

> It is "our" word against the word of c-java-dot-net-UML camp. The
> latter is far more vocal. So what do you expect DoD to do?

Require results, not process.

Banks get good software for their central money servers, because they
insist that they actually work, and are secure, and spend the money to
ensure that happens (and some of them are written in SPARK).

NASA's space shuttle software doesn't fail, because they insist on not
killing astronauts. The strategy in response to that requirement is to
take CMM to heart, and don't let new hires write code until they know
what they are doing. But it's the insistence on the goal that matters.

Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane.

Good software is possible, it's just hard work on everyone's part.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:

> it doesn't make _any_ difference to the health and welfare of this
> planet if the next video game to hit the shelves is buggier than hell,
> because it was written in whatever, taking 3 times as long to write
> than what it could have taken using saner tools. 

I'm in an arguing mood tonight, so I'll argue with this, too :).

If the customers insisted on games that are nicely playable, didn't
crash, had good sound and smooth video, and the programmers were able to
deliver that, then everyone would be happier. That counts a lot towards
"welfare". 

The programmers would be happier because they'd be forced to use better
tools and processes. I'm far happier when I'm writing in Ada with Emacs
than when I'm writing in VHDL with Modelsim!

> which leads me to academia!. Some egg-head(s) get it into their skulls that
> this or that language is cool, so some university starts to push flavor A,
> at the expense of other "industry-proven" technology.  

My impression is it's the other way around. Java took over in
universities because Sun marketed it. But I don't have any good data to
back that up.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:

> On 2010-05-24, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>>>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>>>
>>>> Money.
>>>>
>>>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>>>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>>>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>>>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
>>> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
>>> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 
>>
>> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
>> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
>> and writing good software, that's what would happen.
>
> I don't buy it! If if can't make money using the correct tool for the job,
> thereby generating a safe, workable product, then don't bid the job! 

Right. So someone who is perfectly happy taking the DOD's money, and
spending it on bad tools and processes gets the job. So you are agreeing
with me.

> Then go out and get provably safe technology, and the best people that
> you can to use it. Work ethics and pride of workmanship, two values
> that have gone out the door for the most part, along time ago. 

And who is going to buy that? AdaCore customers, for one. But they are
not the final consumers.

>> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
>> client's job to set the terms of the contract.
>
> Spoken like a true capitalist bean-counter - which is OK provided you are
> not screwing up the environment, and otherwise endangering people's lives
> and well-being in the process.

Effects on the environment need to be included in the cost of the
contract. That we don't do well (or at all) at the moment. But that is
the way forward; include the true cost of everyone's activities in a
free market, and you will get the results you want.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:

> On 2010-05-21, Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ludovic Brenta expounded in news:87d3wqbayp.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org:
>>
>>> Duke Normandin writes:
>>>> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what
>>>>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching,
>>>>>> graphics, etc? TIA..
>>
>> It's ok to be curious but this begs the question of why 
>> it is important for it to be "popular"?
>>
>> Do you have to sell it's use at your company?
>>
>> Are you considering the availability of tools and/or 
>> source code?
>>
>> Or, are you interested in it for your own (or open sourced)
>> projects?
>>
>> Depending on the answers to some of these factors, 
>> popularity may not be important. 
>
> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time
> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a
> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but
> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and
> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada.

You have told us why you are scared of learning Ada (it might be a waste
of time), but not why you want to learn Ada. Are you just curious?

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 22:02:20 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>>
>>> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>>>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>>>>
>>>>> Money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>>>>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>>>>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>>>>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>>>
>>>> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
>>>> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
>>>> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 
>>> 
>>> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
>>> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
>>> and writing good software, that's what would happen.
>>> 
>>> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
>>> client's job to set the terms of the contract.
>>
>> Nice theory, not working in practice. Imagine your baker trying making as
>> much money as possible and you setting terms on the bread's ingredients. 
> 
> Not a valid comparison; I don't have nearly as much buying power as the
> DOD.

Today DoD cannot afford design of a new technology, language, compiler. DoD
can only buy something already designed, e.g. C. It would be a little
exaggeration to compare DoD's influence on the language/technology market
with yours or mine. And it keeps on ceasing. The next flight system could
will be in C#.

>> unable to deliver a sound background for software engineering. Which
>> is more shamanism than engineering. 
> 
> If it's shamanism, then how are the computer science schools at fault?
> "Worship Microsoft" sounds like good shamanism. It used to be "worship
> IBM".

Worshiping belongs to church.

> The complaint was that the contractors are greedy. Under capitalism, the
> assumption is that _everyone_ is greedy, but the government sets the
> rules so the societies best interest is served by everyone's greed.

Absolutely

> It takes a long term view, and adequate social/political education on
> everyone's part. _that's_ why it doesn't work; thinking is hard, most
> people don't want to do it.

People are bad, they were created to kill, steal, become obese and program
in C. You cannot change that.

>> This in turn makes it impossible to impose *reasonable* regulations on
>> what software is and how it is to be engineered. 
> 
> We don't need regulations, we need success oriented contracting.

How do you measure "success"? In terms of market shares? Isn't C a success? 

> Part of the problem is people don't know how to manage large systems;
> that's why the air traffic control system is not replaced yet.

The problem is that there is no market for large, mission critical systems.
You cannot afford trial and error strategy for a system controlling nuclear
reactor or air traffic. Similarly, there is no and cannot be a market for
computer languages, operating systems etc. Without regulations the result
is always microsoft. With regulations it will probably be even worse,
because there is no criteria to create such regulations.

>> (Unreasonable regulations are plenty, of course) Meaningful
>> regulations exist, for example, for bakers, so when you buy bread it
>> is bread. 
> 
> Depends; if I buy it at the local grocery store, it's more like plastic.
> If I buy it at the farmer's market, then it is bread. The only
> regulation involved is health; no bacteria or mold allowed. 

This is what I meant. C is unhealthy. It should be not a question to
discuss, not for market evaluation, not for customers to decide.

But only a hard science has the authority to pass such judgements.

>> When you buy software it can be anything. Because nobody knows for
>> sure how to do it "right". 
> 
> It is much easier to measure results than to enforce process.

I doubt it. Usually testing systems are far more complex than the things
under test. Anyway you move the problem to the customer's shoulders. They
have already spoken. People choose C and Windows, because see above.

> But people don't want to spend the time to do that either.

See above (:-))

>> It is "our" word against the word of c-java-dot-net-UML camp. The
>> latter is far more vocal. So what do you expect DoD to do?
> 
> Require results, not process.

No, require at least *liability*. Forbid "no warranty" commercial licenses.
Scrap "you don't own the software, you only lease it" ones. The things will
change then. This would be a purely regulatory activity.

> Banks get good software for their central money servers, because they
> insist that they actually work, and are secure, and spend the money to
> ensure that happens (and some of them are written in SPARK).

Come on, the cash machine in my bank runs Windows. Guess, how I leant that?
Right, I periodically observe how it crashes! (:-))

> NASA's space shuttle software doesn't fail, because they insist on not
> killing astronauts.

You mean the Mars rover running Java? (:-))

> Good software is possible, it's just hard work on everyone's part.

and there is life after death...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Anonymous]

> BTW, do you know what language Ada is written in? I'd guess C and asm.

If you do some research you can find an incredible web site discussing the
Ada competition in some depth. And here on this very list we have some of
the people who participated in that competition who can surely answer your
question.

I can tell you this for certain: the IBM implementation was not written in
C, at least not on an IBM machine. IBM didn't have a viable C compiler
until much later. Furthermore, assembler is the language of choice on IBM
platforms. It may have been written elsewhere and cross-compiled though.
I'll be interested to see answers to your question, thanks for asking it!

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 25.05.10 13:41, Anonymous wrote:
>> BTW, do you know what language Ada is written in? I'd guess C and asm.
> 
> If you do some research you can find an incredible web site discussing the
> Ada competition in some depth. And here on this very list we have some of
> the people who participated in that competition who can surely answer your
> question.
> 
> I can tell you this for certain: the IBM implementation was not written in
> C, at least not on an IBM machine. IBM didn't have a viable C compiler
> until much later. Furthermore, assembler is the language of choice on IBM
> platforms. It may have been written elsewhere and cross-compiled though.
> I'll be interested to see answers to your question, thanks for asking it!

GNAT is written in Ada, after being drafted in SETL;
a precursor of GNAT was Ada/Ed, an Ada interpreter.
This is what I remember from reading GNAT history.

Another Ada compiler, a variant of AdaMagic, will
output a C program.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[George Orwell]

> GNAT is written in Ada, after being drafted in SETL;
> a precursor of GNAT was Ada/Ed, an Ada interpreter.
> This is what I remember from reading GNAT history.

Yes, everybody knows GNAT was written in GNAT. But GNAT is not Ada, it's
just one implementation, and it is not by any means the first.

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
                  https://www.mixmaster.it

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 25.05.10 15:47, George Orwell wrote:
>> GNAT is written in Ada, after being drafted in SETL;
>> a precursor of GNAT was Ada/Ed, an Ada interpreter.
>> This is what I remember from reading GNAT history.
> 
> Yes, everybody knows GNAT was written in GNAT. But GNAT is not Ada, it's
> just one implementation, and it is not by any means the first.

Yes.  Ada/Ed, though, being an Ada 83 interpreter, being
written in SETL, not C, and being prototypical for GNAT,
indicates that C is not necessarily the single language for
writing high class compilers---as some have implied.
I'm sure you know that is the case for some other languages,
too.
GNAT is one compiler where everyone can convince themselves,
since the sources are open to the public.

Some more hints, all signifying nothing,
absent more reputable positive findings:

- DEC Ada living in an architecture that is decidedly
  not Unix, and less C centric

- Rational, offering Ada/Apex long before they added C++

- Alsys Ada being compared to Occam on the T800 Transputer

- Mentionings of counts of pragma Assert (and other Ada terms)
  in compiler source, not just in GNAT, but also in Janus/Ada,
  and, IIRC IBM Ada (formerly Rational).

Would they all have been using C (K&R C, that is) on non-C
platforms nevertheless, for implementing their compilers?

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[J-P. Rosen]

Georg Bauhaus a écrit :
> Yes.  Ada/Ed, though, being an Ada 83 interpreter, being
> written in SETL, not C, and being prototypical for GNAT,
> indicates that C is not necessarily the single language for
> writing high class compilers---as some have implied.
> I'm sure you know that is the case for some other languages,
> too.
In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure
of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. For this
reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a good idea to
write the compiler in its own language, safe for special cases like
initial bootstrapping.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Nomen Nescio]

> Would they all have been using C (K&R C, that is) on non-C
> platforms nevertheless, for implementing their compilers?

It depends much on the platform. On UNIX, everything was unquestionably
written in C, on IBM, unquestionably in assembler. Other platforms, I don't
know. I wasn't arguing C is a good choice for anything, nor is C++.

I'm a proud Ada bigot like most posters :-) I see no purpose for C or C++
except if you are a UNIX coder, because those OS are written using C.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

=?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= expounded in
news:op.vc2xkdarule2fv@garhos: 

> Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:05:33 +0200, Duke Normandin
> <dukeofperl@ml1.net> a  écrit:
>> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the
>> ti 
> me
>> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but
> in  
>> a
>> museum.
..
> .. Not popular, does not implies bad (and
> popular  does not implies good).

That is especially true of music!

Warren

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Warren]

Bryan expounded in
news:1cdca5d5-4136-4383-a47f-9397cec34698@v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com: 

> By all means I say learn Ada at least as a learning exercise.  It's a
> great language that you can grow with over time.  GNAT is a great tool
> set as well, it provides you everything you need in the beginning.

And pretty soon you'll be comparing all other languages 
and their features to Ada. ;-)

Warren

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:15:40 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Georg Bauhaus a �crit :
>> Yes.  Ada/Ed, though, being an Ada 83 interpreter, being
>> written in SETL, not C, and being prototypical for GNAT,
>> indicates that C is not necessarily the single language for
>> writing high class compilers---as some have implied.
>> I'm sure you know that is the case for some other languages,
>> too.
> In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure
> of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. For this
> reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a good idea to
> write the compiler in its own language, safe for special cases like
> initial bootstrapping.

I don't think this is true.

1. Theoretically there is no obvious connection between the language and
the things it describes. The word "red" is not red. English grammar is not
influenced by Maxwell's equations, etc. [*]

2. Practically, is there any SQL parser written in SQL?

The languages in which a compiler can be written are in minority. Well,
AFAIK the Convey's life is Turing complete, but there never will be any
compiler in it.

P.S. I bet Ada is better for writing a C compiler than C.

* I said "no obvious", because, clearly, any language is influenced by the
way our perception functions. There is a connection, but it is not
straightforward.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 11:05:06 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> People are bad, they were created to kill, steal, become obese and  
> program
> in C. You cannot change that.
Seems obvious this activity cannot be ripped apart the rest of the  
world/humanity.

It is mostly done like others human stuff are done. However, computer  
science is still one which is done the nicer. Yes, there are flow, but at  
least, a bug is to be fixed when discovered and it is mostly done sooner  
or later, even if not always the better way. Just compare that to  
administrations and civil services, which proudly enforce there own bugs  
more years or two or three century. At least, with computer science, even  
with C, you will never see someone to be proud of numerous existing bug  
and maintain and sustain this as much as they can.

Just to say that, yes, human is what it is, but computer science is one of  
the best place where although not all is nice, things goes better than  
with anything else.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Dmitry A. Kazakov writes on comp.lang.ada:
> P.S. I bet Ada is better for writing a C compiler than C.

I don't think so; human factors would get in the way.  A programmer
proficient in Ada might start doing this but would eventually give up
and write a Pascal compiler instead :)

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 16:24:20 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> Yes.  Ada/Ed, though, being an Ada 83 interpreter, being
> written in SETL, not C, and being prototypical for GNAT,
> indicates that C is not necessarily the single language for
> writing high class compilers---as some have implied.
> I'm sure you know that is the case for some other languages,
> too.
> GNAT is one compiler where everyone can convince themselves,
> since the sources are open to the public.

Depends on the initial state. For precursor or near to be so, this starts  
with a bootstrap sequence : the compiler is written either in assembly, or  
C (or may be Basic), or something of the like. This state is short, and as  
soon as possible it is rewritten in the compiler's target language itself,  
and it's funfair time when the compiler is able to compile it self (a  
great and memorable moment of history). This first part of the history is  
short, then after, all goes with the compiler's target language (or a  
subset for safety and stability insurance).

    FreePascal is written in FreePascal.
    GCC is written in (GNU)C
    GNAT is written in Ada
    Janus (as far as I know and read about) is written in Ada
    SmallEiffel and its successor SmartEiffel was written in Eiffel.
    There are a few assembly written in assembly.

For other kind of language, that's a bit different : you have some Prolog  
interpreters written in LISP and some LISP interpreters written in Prolog  
(for fun and proof of some concept... and it shows both are indeed Turing  
machines).

This draw the line below which a language is an implementation language or  
a Domain Specific Language.

If a compiler can be advantageously (mostly with efficiency in mind)  
written in it's target language, then, this target language is an  
implementation language. If not, it is probably a DSL (Domain Specific  
Language), like Prolog and LISP are (well, to be honest, LISP is a special  
case, as it could be an implementation language on some architectures ;  
assembly is a special case also).

To be inquisitive : do some one have an idea of the implementation  
language of Basic interpreter and compilers ? I do not have an idea.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 18:15:40 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:
> In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure
> of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. For this
> reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a good idea to
> write the compiler in its own language, safe for special cases like
> initial bootstrapping.
That is.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 19:34:43 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> 2. Practically, is there any SQL parser written in SQL?
Because SQL is a DSL.

> P.S. I bet Ada is better for writing a C compiler than C.
May be or may be not. This can be done well in C too (the author is as  
much important as the implementation language) and then, C advocators will  
obviously try to create it using C. So C is most likely to be the choice.  
Ada would be better for some reason, but the final product and the source  
is not the same thing. If the product is good, this does not matter for  
users if the source is hard to maintain and understand.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 19:42:48 +0200, Ludovic Brenta  
<ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov writes on comp.lang.ada:
>> P.S. I bet Ada is better for writing a C compiler than C.
>
> I don't think so; human factors would get in the way.  A programmer
> proficient in Ada might start doing this but would eventually give up
> and write a Pascal compiler instead :)
For the news and as an anecdote : C is rising up again (due to embedded  
systems quickly rising every where), while C++ is slightly decreasing (for  
the same reason C is rising again, C++ is decreasing), and the Pascal  
usenet group is closed. So... not sure.


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[J-P. Rosen]

Dmitry A. Kazakov a �crit :
>> In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure
>> of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. For this
>> reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a good idea to
>> write the compiler in its own language, safe for special cases like
>> initial bootstrapping.
> 
> I don't think this is true.
I said "in most programming languages..."
> 
> 1. Theoretically there is no obvious connection between the language and
> the things it describes. The word "red" is not red. English grammar is not
> influenced by Maxwell's equations, etc. [*]
I was talking about computer languages.

> 2. Practically, is there any SQL parser written in SQL?
OK, that's an exception.

> The languages in which a compiler can be written are in minority. 
Maybe more than you think. C compilers are in C, I wouldn't be surprised
if C++ compilers were in C++ and PL/1 compilers in PL/1. Most Ada
compilers are in Ada; I once knew a Lisp compiler in Lisp, and of course
there is someone who swears that Cobol is a great language for writing
Cobol compilers ;-). Hint: he wrote one of the best Cobol compilers for
the PC - in Cobol.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 18:24:31 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> a  
écrit:
> It depends much on the platform. On UNIX, everything was unquestionably
> written in C, on IBM, unquestionably in assembler. Other platforms, I  
> don't know.
At least, the Windows ABI is a C ABI, except for calling convention, which  
use the “invoked/callee clean the stack” of Pascal and the “parameters  
pushed right to left” of C (the calling convention defined by the Windows  
32 ABI is a funny mix).

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1805 bytes --]

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?= expounded in
news:op.vc9u6lo2xmjfy8@garhos: 

> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 11:05:06 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> People are bad, they were created to kill, steal, become obese and  
> 
>> program
>> in C. You cannot change that.
> Seems obvious this activity cannot be ripped apart the rest of the  
> world/humanity.

I don't know, but I think ppl tend to forget about the
things that influence choice (since that is really what
we are talking about). No one as a developer would say
that he likes to "choose inferior tools". He'll simply
challenge what is best or inferior.

And when discussing "best", one will not arrive at a single
answer anyway because so many other factors must also be
considered.

So by no means is this an exhaustive list of influences:

- ignorance (ppl don't embrace what they don't know)
- laziness (even when informed about it, no energy spent to give an 
honest consideration).
- perception (it can be perceived as old/bloated/military whatever)
- personal stake (why learn something with no local job market)
- resistance to compiler errors (many folks seem happier to debug 
instead).
- interface ease (the need to be good at writing bindings to C/C++)
- library/tools support (the quantity and quality of)
- crowd thinking (many not willing to defend an unpopular choice)

and probably much much more.

None of these really have much to do with Ada as technology
per se. Most of this (I think) is about popular perception.

Even the magazine writers, who should be more knowledgable,
tend to cast Ada in a negative light (as a "bloated language"
etc.). Or sometimes they confuse it with something else (like
perhaps "full PL/I"). This tends to reinforce the 
misconceptions.

Warren

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[John B. Matthews]

In article <op.vc9xlkncule2fv@garhos>,
 Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 18:24:31 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> a  
> écrit:
> > It depends much on the platform. On UNIX, everything was 
> > unquestionably written in C, on IBM, unquestionably in assembler. 
> > Other platforms, I  don't know.
> At least, the Windows ABI is a C ABI, except for calling convention, 
> which  use the “invoked/callee clean the stack” of Pascal and the 
> “parameters  pushed right to left” of C (the calling convention 
> defined by the Windows  32 ABI is a funny mix).

Early versions of Windows [1] may have been influenced by an 
association with Apple's original Macintosh OS, which specified Pascal 
calling conventions [2] in the API, "Inside Macintosh" [3]. Bindings 
for an early version of GNAT on Mac OS 9 were translated from the 
corresponding Pascal interface specifications [4].

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows>
[2]<http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.05/05.03/ToolboxfromAda/index.html>
[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Macintosh>
[4]<http://home.roadrunner.com/~jbmatthews/ada.html>

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 21:50:36 +0200, John B. Matthews  
<nospam@nospam.invalid> a écrit:
> Early versions of Windows [1] may have been influenced by an
> association with Apple's original Macintosh OS, which specified Pascal
> calling conventions
Yes, the “push right ot left” is only for Windows 32 bits. Windows 16 bits  
as using the pure Pascal calling convention, that is, the “push left to  
right”. However, in both case, the invoked procedure clean the stack.

Thanks to have noticed about an influence from Mac. I believe this is  
possible, indeed.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 21:50:36 +0200, John B. Matthews  
<nospam@nospam.invalid> a écrit:
> [2]<http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.05/05.03/ToolboxfromAda/index.html>
Waw, “Calling the Mac ToolBox from Ada”. thanks again for this one. I will  
later attempt to build a cross compiler Windows -> Mac, and I guess this  
document gonna be useful to me to try to create Mac applications from  
Windows (unfortunately, I do not have a Mac to test :( will have to bother  
somebodies and ask them to test)


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Yannick Duchêne writes on comp.lang.ada:
> and the Pascal  usenet group is closed. So... not sure.

That's because it has been superseded by:

comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso
comp.lang.pascal.borland
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.advocacy
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.announce
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.misc
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.usage
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.writing
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.databases
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc
comp.lang.pascal.mac
comp.lang.pascal.misc

and more.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Mon, 24 May 2010 22:02:20 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>
>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
>>>> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
>>>> and writing good software, that's what would happen.
>>>> 
>>>> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
>>>> client's job to set the terms of the contract.
>>>
>>> Nice theory, not working in practice. Imagine your baker trying making as
>>> much money as possible and you setting terms on the bread's ingredients. 
>> 
>> Not a valid comparison; I don't have nearly as much buying power as the
>> DOD.
>
> Today DoD cannot afford design of a new technology, language, compiler. DoD
> can only buy something already designed, e.g. C. It would be a little
> exaggeration to compare DoD's influence on the language/technology market
> with yours or mine. And it keeps on ceasing. The next flight system could
> will be in C#.

Are we talking about the same DoD? The United States Department of
Defense has essentially unlimited funds; look what we are spending in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

They choose not to spend money on software, but that's a political and
technical decision, not a money one.

>> We don't need regulations, we need success oriented contracting.
>
> How do you measure "success"? In terms of market shares? Isn't C a
> success? 

For a DoD contract for a figher airplane, "success" is measured by
absence of errors during flight, high performance during flight, and
ease of long term maintenance.

>> Part of the problem is people don't know how to manage large systems;
>> that's why the air traffic control system is not replaced yet.
>
> The problem is that there is no market for large, mission critical systems. 
> You cannot afford trial and error strategy for a system controlling
> nuclear reactor or air traffic. 

Technically, there is a market for these, it's just very inefficient
because it's low volume.

> Similarly, there is no and cannot be a market for computer languages,
> operating systems etc. 

You're kidding, right? The whole point of this discussion is about what
language to use.

> Without regulations the result is always microsoft. 

Not at my place of work. The reason most peopel use Microsoft is
_because_ of regulation.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:

> do you know what language Ada is written in? I'd guess
> C and asm.

"Ada" refers to a standard language definition. It is written in
English (there may be translations to other languages available).

Various Ada compilers are written in various languages. The GNAT
compiler front end is written in Ada; the back end is gcc, written in C;
the runtime is written in Ada, with a little bit of assembler for
specific machines.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

"J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:

> Georg Bauhaus a écrit :
>> Yes.  Ada/Ed, though, being an Ada 83 interpreter, being
>> written in SETL, not C, and being prototypical for GNAT,
>> indicates that C is not necessarily the single language for
>> writing high class compilers---as some have implied.
>> I'm sure you know that is the case for some other languages,
>> too.
> In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure
> of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. 

This is certainly true.

> For this reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a
> good idea to write the compiler in its own language, safe for special
> cases like initial bootstrapping.

That does not follow. If I have a language designed for manipulating
databases, that means is is _not_ a good language for implementing a
compiler. 

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:13:21 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 19:34:43 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> 2. Practically, is there any SQL parser written in SQL?
> Because SQL is a DSL.

Which are in majority. Universal-purpose languages are in minority. Likely
further limited to predominantly imperative languages.

>> P.S. I bet Ada is better for writing a C compiler than C.
> May be or may be not. This can be done well in C too (the author is as  
> much important as the implementation language) and then, C advocators will  
> obviously try to create it using C. So C is most likely to be the choice.

It is about personal preferences, not as J-P said, about some language
structures. Language structures are largely shared by all universal-purpose
languages.

> If the product is good, this does not matter for  
> users if the source is hard to maintain and understand.

1. Users do not maintain compilers
2. C code is unmaintainable
3. I never saw a good C compiler, probably because none was written in Ada
(:-). The best was DEC C, I guess it wasn't in C (Maybe I am wrong)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 26 May 2010 09:21:52 +0200, Stephen Leake  
<stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a écrit:
> "Ada" refers to a standard language definition. It is written in
> English (there may be translations to other languages available).
Really ?
I've never seen it in an other language than English (my self, in the  
past, I though about doing a french translation, bug gave up : too much  
work and time required for strictly no return expected).

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[AdaMagica]

On 26 Mai, 09:59, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
> Le Wed, 26 May 2010 09:21:52 +0200, Stephen Leake  
> <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org> a écrit:> "Ada" refers to a standard language definition. It is written in
> > English (there may be translations to other languages available).
>
> Really ?
> I've never seen it in an other language than English (my self, in the  
> past, I though about doing a french translation, bug gave up : too much  
> work and time required for strictly no return expected).

For Ada 83, there's a translation into German (I've got it at home) by
Siemens, which is quite good.
For Ada 95, there's a translation into russian http://www.ada-ru.org/,
but I can't judge the quality.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 03:16:44 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> Today DoD cannot afford design of a new technology, language, compiler. DoD
>> can only buy something already designed, e.g. C. It would be a little
>> exaggeration to compare DoD's influence on the language/technology market
>> with yours or mine. And it keeps on ceasing. The next flight system could
>> will be in C#.
> 
> Are we talking about the same DoD? The United States Department of
> Defense has essentially unlimited funds; look what we are spending in
> Afghanistan and Iraq.

These funds cannot be spent on software development. Well, the software may
kill, but it predominantly does its users... (:-))

> They choose not to spend money on software, but that's a political and
> technical decision, not a money one.

That is the same. Software is not considered an existential threat (it
probably should). 

>>> We don't need regulations, we need success oriented contracting.
>>
>> How do you measure "success"? In terms of market shares? Isn't C a
>> success? 
> 
> For a DoD contract for a figher airplane, "success" is measured by
> absence of errors during flight, high performance during flight, and
> ease of long term maintenance.

Yep, and none of these can be unequivocally deduced from the software
design faults. And absolutely none from the software technology. Remember
Ariane.

>>> Part of the problem is people don't know how to manage large systems;
>>> that's why the air traffic control system is not replaced yet.
>>
>> The problem is that there is no market for large, mission critical systems. 
>> You cannot afford trial and error strategy for a system controlling
>> nuclear reactor or air traffic. 
> 
> Technically, there is a market for these, it's just very inefficient
> because it's low volume.

That is the point. If you had millions competing implementations of the
same software product, you could chose the best vendor by natural selection
in some years. That will *never* happen with software, written by man. The
price to establish such a competition is millions higher than the price of
any monopolist's software faults. Software is a natural monopoly.

>> Similarly, there is no and cannot be a market for computer languages,
>> operating systems etc. 
> 
> You're kidding, right? The whole point of this discussion is about what
> language to use.

Exactly. If market worked, you knew the answer from there.

>> Without regulations the result is always microsoft. 
> 
> Not at my place of work. The reason most peopel use Microsoft is
> _because_ of regulation.

May I beg for an example?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 01:06:06 -0700 (PDT), AdaMagica wrote:

> On 26 Mai, 09:59, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
>> Le Wed, 26 May 2010 09:21:52 +0200, Stephen Leake �
>> <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org> a �crit:> "Ada" refers to a standard language definition. It is written in
>>> English (there may be translations to other languages available).
>>
>> Really ?
>> I've never seen it in an other language than English (my self, in the �
>> past, I though about doing a french translation, bug gave up : too much �
>> work and time required for strictly no return expected).
> 
> For Ada 83, there's a translation into German (I've got it at home) by
> Siemens, which is quite good.

I have a Russian translation of the Ada 83 standard, published under one
cover with Gehani. Both were excellent.

> For Ada 95, there's a translation into russian http://www.ada-ru.org/,
> but I can't judge the quality.

This is not a translation of the standard, it is an original work on the
principles and techniques of programming in Ada. It is good, IMO, deserves
publishing in English and other languages.

AFAIK all Rationales are translated into Russian. I cannot tell if the
actual standard is. (I am not a big fan of translated standards.)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Yannick Duchêne wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> I've never seen [the Ada standard] in an other language than English
> (my self, in the past, I though about doing a french translation,
> bug gave up : too much work and time required for strictly no return
> expected).

I have a copy of the Ada 83 standard in French at home. A real
collector's item :)

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 26.05.10 10:55, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Yannick Duch�ne wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>> I've never seen [the Ada standard] in an other language than English
>> (my self, in the past, I though about doing a french translation,
>> bug gave up : too much work and time required for strictly no return
>> expected).
> 
> I have a copy of the Ada 83 standard in French at home. A real
> collector's item :)

Is there a glossary in it, perhaps listing the "official"
translations of key terms?

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 26 May 2010 11:24:42 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:

> On 26.05.10 10:55, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> I have a copy of the Ada 83 standard in French at home. A real
>> collector's item :)
Sure “collector” is the properly matching word here :)

> Is there a glossary in it, perhaps listing the "official"
> translations of key terms?
If you interested in this, here is a list of such key term by key term  
translation:
http://lglwww.epfl.ch/ada/glossaire/glossaire-v1.0.html

note: I don't agree with some of the translations, and this is not an  
official translation, while may still be useful


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 26.05.10 09:24, Stephen Leake wrote:
> "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:
> 
>> In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure
>> of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. 
> 
> This is certainly true.
> 
>> For this reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a
>> good idea to write the compiler in its own language, safe for special
>> cases like initial bootstrapping.
> 
> That does not follow. If I have a language designed for manipulating
> databases, that means is is _not_ a good language for implementing a
> compiler. 

A database language may be compiled by itself if the program text
is suitably stored?
Notably, a compiler has tables, relational databases have tables;
when a compiler establishes a hierarchy (a tree), a hierachical
database does, too, a relational database uses ... relations.
Surely the "source text" will be easily processed if it reflects
the structural properties of the database---if it is stored as
relations. For example, when an Ada compiler marks a block such as
a loop with a name written by the programmer, or with an ad-hoc
name that it creates itself, then a database table of loops can
have those names, too. (And they would serve in unique keys.)
Similarly, the database can establish a "byte code table" for
executing a list of CRUD instructions...

Hmm... It might in fact be interesting to store program information
in tables.  It is then possible to perform queries like "give me all
loops involving variables of a type in T'Class." ...

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 26 May 2010 11:58:39 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> Hmm... It might in fact be interesting to store program information
> in tables.  It is then possible to perform queries like "give me all
> loops involving variables of a type in T'Class." ...
A dedicated ASIS program could be able to do that.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:58:39 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> A database language may be compiled by itself if the program text
> is suitably stored?

I think that is likely possible. Interestingly relational "languages" are
usually non Turing-complete. My wild guess is that it is the conversions to
a relational representation of the source code and the conversion of the
intermediate "relational" code to the machine code, which were impossible
to accomplish. No matter how trivial they might be in a language like Ada.

> Notably, a compiler has tables, relational databases have tables;
> when a compiler establishes a hierarchy (a tree), a hierachical
> database does, too, a relational database uses ... relations.

Any directed graph is a binary relation. So it is not an existential
problem, but it is a huge practical problem, because relational
representation are extremely poor with handling trees.

> Surely the "source text" will be easily processed if it reflects
> the structural properties of the database---if it is stored as
> relations. For example, when an Ada compiler marks a block such as
> a loop with a name written by the programmer, or with an ad-hoc
> name that it creates itself, then a database table of loops can
> have those names, too. (And they would serve in unique keys.)
> Similarly, the database can establish a "byte code table" for
> executing a list of CRUD instructions...
> 
> Hmm... It might in fact be interesting to store program information
> in tables.  It is then possible to perform queries like "give me all
> loops involving variables of a type in T'Class." ...

Due to total lack of abstractness relational representations require heavy
flattening, down to the lowest level. So it would be "give me the first
quark of the loop." Not very helpful.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Simon Wright]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> 3. I never saw a good C compiler, probably because none was written in
> Ada (:-). The best was DEC C, I guess it wasn't in C (Maybe I am
> wrong)

Possibly BLISS.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 26 May 2010 23:22:54 +0200, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> a  
écrit:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>
>> 3. I never saw a good C compiler, probably because none was written in
>> Ada (:-). The best was DEC C, I guess it wasn't in C (Maybe I am
>> wrong)
>
> Possibly BLISS.

Seems to be a possible match at least
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS
http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/87-07-029

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[J-P. Rosen]

Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
> I have a copy of the Ada 83 standard in French at home. A real
> collector's item :)
> 
Note that it is not just a translation; it is a French standard, and an
integral part of the ISO standard 8652:1987 (at that time, standards had
to be published in two languages, with equal standardization status).

Actually, the reason why the ISO standard is 4 years older than the ANSI
standard is that it had to wait for the french translation.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 27 May 2010 08:49:23 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:
> Actually, the reason why the ISO standard is 4 years older than the ANSI
> standard is that it had to wait for the french translation.
Does it have something to deal with the AFNOR ? (Association française de  
normalisation, i.e. French office of normalization).

Why is french so much important with international standards ? I've  
already noted, from long ago, the Unicode standard gives an as good place  
to french as it gives english.

Or is it due to Ichbia, who was french ? (as this one is the Ada standard  
and he was one of the famous founders)

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
C is less crappy than C++ => you should switch from C++ to C.

Ada compilers written in ... (was: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?)

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 25.05.10 13:41, Anonymous wrote:
>> BTW, do you know what language Ada is written in? I'd guess C and asm.
> 
> If you do some research you can find an incredible web site discussing the
> Ada competition in some depth. And here on this very list we have some of
> the people who participated in that competition who can surely answer your
> question.
> 
> I can tell you this for certain: the IBM implementation was not written in
> C, at least not on an IBM machine. IBM didn't have a viable C compiler
> until much later. Furthermore, assembler is the language of choice on IBM
> platforms. It may have been written elsewhere and cross-compiled though.
> I'll be interested to see answers to your question, thanks for asking it!
> 


Another finding is a validated Ada compiler for BS2000 by Siemens,
as reported in Computerwoche 1987-07-03:

(Translation, ad hoc)

"The compiler, made of modules, is written in the programming
language Ada.  According to the Munichians, it may be ported
to other computers or retargetted to emit different binary code.
A library is managing interfacing information for the separate
translation modules.

"The ``Analysator'' module performs lexical, syntactic, and semantic
analysis of source text. It generates intermediate code that is at
a high level of abstraction at this stage (see figure). The ``Expander''
module transforms intermediate code into another machine independent
code. This code is close to usual machine code.  From it, the code
generator produces machine code.  When moving to a different
computer system a new specific code generator needs to be developed."


Original:

"Der modulartig aufgebaute Compiler ist in der Programmiersprache Ada
geschrieben und kann nach Angeben der Münchner auf andere Rechner portiert
beziehungsweise auf einen anderen Zielcode umgestellt werden. Eine Bibliothek
verwaltet die Schnittstelleninformationen für die separaten Übersetzungsmodule.

"Das Analysator-Modul führt die lexikalische, syntaktische und semantische
Analyse des Quelltextes durch und erzeugt einen Zwischencode von zunächst noch
hohem Abstraktionsniveau (siehe Grafik). Das Expander-Modul transformiert
diesen Zwischencode auf einen weiteren maschinenunabhängigen Code, der aber
den üblichen Maschinensprachen sehr nahe steht. Der Codegenerator produziert
daraus die Maschinensprache. Bei der Umstellung auf ein anderes Rechnersystem
muß jeweils ein neuer Codegenerator entwickelt werden."

http://www.computerwoche.de/heftarchiv/1987/27/1160365/

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[J-P. Rosen]

Yannick Duchï¿œne (Hibou57) a ï¿œcrit :
> Le Thu, 27 May 2010 08:49:23 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a ï¿œcrit:
>> Actually, the reason why the ISO standard is 4 years older than the ANSI
>> standard is that it had to wait for the french translation.
> Does it have something to deal with the AFNOR ? (Association franï¿œaise
> de normalisation, i.e. French office of normalization).
Yes, it is the official AFNOR/EN standard.

> Why is french so much important with international standards ? I've
> already noted, from long ago, the Unicode standard gives an as good
> place to french as it gives english.

ISO has three official languages: English, French and Russian. At that
time, a standard had to be published in two of these languages. Given
that the English version had been written by French people sponsored by
the US DoD, Russian was rapidly dismissed...

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:50:32 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) a écrit :
>> Le Thu, 27 May 2010 08:49:23 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:
>>> Actually, the reason why the ISO standard is 4 years older than the ANSI
>>> standard is that it had to wait for the french translation.
>> Does it have something to deal with the AFNOR ? (Association française
>> de normalisation, i.e. French office of normalization).
> Yes, it is the official AFNOR/EN standard.
> 
>> Why is french so much important with international standards ? I've
>> already noted, from long ago, the Unicode standard gives an as good
>> place to french as it gives english.
> 
> ISO has three official languages: English, French and Russian. At that
> time, a standard had to be published in two of these languages. Given
> that the English version had been written by French people sponsored by
> the US DoD, Russian was rapidly dismissed...

Nevertheless, in 1988 Ada was published as a USSR state standard (ГОСТ
27831-88). In the same year an ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A translation was published
without a reference to either ГОСТ or ISO.

Funny. I don't have the ГОСТ 27831-88, but suppose it is an independent
translation. In the late USSR there existed several competing departments
responsible for hardware and software... A triumph of planned economy, as
one could say. (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada compilers written in ... (was: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?)

[Mike Sieweke]

In article <4bfe71ba$0$7661$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>,
 Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:

> Another finding is a validated Ada compiler for BS2000 by Siemens,
> as reported in Computerwoche 1987-07-03:
> 
> (Translation, ad hoc)
> 
> "The compiler, made of modules, is written in the programming
> language Ada.  According to the Munichians, it may be ported
> to other computers or retargetted to emit different binary code.
> A library is managing interfacing information for the separate
> translation modules.

In an interesting coincidence, I just came across an ad for Alsys
Ada in the June 1986 Byte Magazine.  Here's a quote from the ad:

"The Alsys Ada compiler for the PC AT is not only validated,
it's actually written in Ada.  And produces code so efficient
it executes faster than C or Pascal on tested benchmarks."

The compiler cost $3000 (!), but that includes a 4 MB memory
upgrade card.  Times have changed just a bit.


-- Mike Sieweke
-- "Just a bit of harmless brain alteration, that's all..."

Re: Ada compilers written in ... (was: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?)

[AdaMagica]

On 27 Mai, 15:20, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de> wrote:
> Another finding is a validated Ada compiler for BS2000 by Siemens,
> as reported in Computerwoche 1987-07-03:

I had the pleasure to do actual work with this compiler.

I had known Ada since 1983 when I had taken a programming course. I
liked the language from the beginning - it had all I was missing from
Pascal, e.g. attributes like 'First. My daily work though was a
FORTRAN Monte Carlo simulation, and I direly missed all the nice
features Pascal (and Ada) provided. And imagine: The program was still
on punched cards! I had to take a heavy pile of a few thousand cards
to the dispatcher each time we ran it. But over time I could convince
my boss to store it electronically and work on it with an editor
(showing just 5 or so lines on a tiny screen).

In my free time, I wrote just for fun a few Ada programs (which I
could not run because of lack of a compiler).

When I left that company, I was lucky to find a job where I had to
translate an embedded real-time PEARL program for simulation purposes
to Ada. This was this brand new Siemens compiler we used, and a few
times I put my fingers into gory wounds or black holes and went to
Siemens to see the compiler writers in their cubicles (a bunch of nice
guys who liked to see their product put under stress). But overall, it
was a very fine product with nice and helpful compiler messages.
Sadly, Siemens later abandoned the compiler (put it right into the
bin) for I don't know which other language, for the great dismay of
the team.

Siemens had also translated the Ada RM into German, and I have it
still. You can imagine such a translation is a tremendously demanding
work. No wonder there is no such translation for Ada 95 or later.
Within Ada Germany (I am a founder member), we tried to set up a
translation table for the technical terms of Ada 95, but this was
never finished.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake  
<stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a écrit:
> It is much easier to measure results than to enforce process. But people
> don't want to spend the time to do that either.
Not sure (but I don't bother, as my opinion is difficult to argue)

> Banks get good software for their central money servers, because they
> insist that they actually work, and are secure, and spend the money to
> ensure that happens (and some of them are written in SPARK).
And the others ?

> NASA's space shuttle software doesn't fail, because they insist on not
> killing astronauts. The strategy in response to that requirement is to
> take CMM to heart,
What is CMM ?

> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane.
I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean commercial  
applications or an airline company are typically more reliable than the  
one its planes ?

if that is so, that's frightening

> Good software is possible, it's just hard work on everyone's part.
Perhaps the hardest one is finally investment on the client side (I mean,  
the human client).


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Niklas Holsti]

Yannick Duchï¿œne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake 
> <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a ï¿œcrit:
>> NASA's space shuttle software doesn't fail, because they insist on not
>> killing astronauts. The strategy in response to that requirement is to
>> take CMM to heart,
> What is CMM ?

"... a development model elicited from actual data. " 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:23:14 +0200, Niklas Holsti  
<niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> a écrit:
>> What is CMM ?
>
> "... a development model elicited from actual data. "  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
>
Ah, OK, that is a certification of quality of service (somewhat comparable  
to ISO 9001) in the domain of leading/driving software projects.

(if I'm not wrong if this summary)

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake
> <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a écrit:

> What is CMM ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model

>> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane.
> I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean
> commercial applications or an airline company are typically more
> reliable than the  one its planes ?

I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Le Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:23:14 +0200, Niklas Holsti
> <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> a écrit:
>>> What is CMM ?
>>
>> "... a development model elicited from actual data. "
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
>>
> Ah, OK, that is a certification of quality of service (somewhat
> comparable to ISO 9001) in the domain of leading/driving software
> projects.

CMM itself is a description of how to think about the process of
developing software (or other engineering activities).

It defines various levels, and you can get certified to those levels.

But the important point is the thinking, not the certifying.

Of course, many management types miss this point, and simply insist on
being certified, while not allowing time for thinking.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Brian Drummond]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:08:06 -0400, Stephen Leake
<stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:

>"Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
>> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake
>> <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a �crit:
>
>> What is CMM ?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
>
>>> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane.
>> I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean
>> commercial applications or an airline company are typically more
>> reliable than the  one its planes ?
>
>I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
>reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.

Some of the embedded computers on an airplane...

My wife just returned from the States. She managed to crash one of the
in-flight video games, which rebooted her LCD/TV/on-demand-video
terminal. She gleefully noted a picture of a penguin scrolling past in
the kernel boot messages... (and some announcements to the effect that
"this module will not work with this kernel")

Perhaps Ada ought to be more widely used...

- Brian

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:08:06 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
> 
>> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake
>> <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a �crit:
> 
>> What is CMM ?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
> 
>>> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane.
>> I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean
>> commercial applications or an airline company are typically more
>> reliable than the  one its planes ?
> 
> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.

I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The
technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochastic
nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical
processes involved in production and function of the given component). On
the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its production
nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no probability
associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges?

P.S. One thinkable scenario could be to consider all possible states of the
program. Let some of them when reached are considered as manifestation of a
certain fault. The probability that the states were reached might be
nominated the fault's probability. This model does not look very
convincing. Especially, because it rather depends on the program's inputs,
than on the program itself.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:40:19 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
>> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.
>
> I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The
> technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochastic
> nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical
> processes involved in production and function of the given component). On
> the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its  
> production
> nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no  
> probability
> associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges?
This does not invalidate statistics on source of failures (OK to say this  
can explains these statistics).

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:55:00 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:40:19 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>>> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
>>> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.
>>
>> I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The
>> technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochastic
>> nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical
>> processes involved in production and function of the given component). On
>> the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its production
>> nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no probability
>> associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges?
> This does not invalidate statistics on source of failures (OK to say this  
> can explains these statistics).

If you mean "lies, damned lies, and statistics" then yes. (Did you know
that 90% of people died in car accidents had eaten cucumbers shortly before
the accident? (:-))

If you mean mathematical statistics, then its applicability depends on
strict conditions. Prior these established the statistics (samples) of
failures is just a collection of anecdotes...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:23:07 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:

> If you mean mathematical statistics, then its applicability depends on
> strict conditions. Prior these established the statistics (samples) of
> failures is just a collection of anecdotes...
As usual, with mathematics and logic, interpretation is an issue. The  
interpretation here should be correlation (I am not arguing this is true  
that software is less or more reliable than mechanical parts, as I don't  
have needed materials to assert anything about it). Statistics are  
intermediate results, and intermediate result are not always  
interpretable, ok, you're right.

> If you mean "lies, damned lies, and statistics" then yes. (Did you know
> that 90% of people died in car accidents had eaten cucumbers shortly  
> before
> the accident? (:-))
This is not even an implication, so it is unlikely this will legitimately  
argue for a correlation. Here is why: “Had eaten cucumbers” may be an  
antecedent of many other things, so this would not be a meaningful  
correlation, and moreover “Had eaten cucumbers” may be an antecedent of  
“accident occurred” as much as “no accident occurred at all”, so this does  
not justify an implication or correlation. Well, I am relying on an  
implicit here, because what is exactly missing, in your example, would  
exactly be statistics about “Had eaten cucumbers” when “no accident  
occurred at all”. Conclusion : one statistic is not relevant alone, it  
needs others, forming a good coverage of different cases (logic needs its  
food).

I was wrong just saying “statistics”, so the reformulation I suggest is  
“this does not invalidate any noticed correlation” (statistics being just  
a tool there, to help see correlation, and multiple statistics are needed  
for various configurations).

I suppose I understand what you mean and was just wrong with my wordings.

Cheers

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Fritz Wuehler]

> > Banks get good software for their central money servers, because they
> > insist that they actually work, and are secure, and spend the money to
> > ensure that happens (and some of them are written in SPARK).
> And the others ?

None of the bank software I have seen has ever been written in Ada, much
less Spark. It's is 100% COBOL. They may have front-ends written in all
sorts of garbage languages (Java, etc.) but the financial processing is
COBOL and there is still some amount of assembler around.

Ada is better than COBOL except in one way. It is easier to write reports
(the bulk of financial processing) and define decimal (money) fields in
COBOL than Ada. It *could* have been used in financial processing, but
COBOL had two decades and a half of a head start.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin Krischik]

Am 24.05.2010, 11:31 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>:

> Which is more shamanism than engineering.

I like to point out a true shaman is supposed to make a visit to the other  
word as part is his initiation. He does it by nibbling some interesting  
mushrooms. If he returns from his visit to the other world he is welcomed  
as new member to the community of shamans. If he does not return, ah well  
guess it was not his calling after all.

I wonder what would happen if we applies a similar strict finals to our CS  
graduates…

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin Krischik]

Am 04.06.2010, 21:23 Uhr, schrieb Fritz Wuehler  
<fritz@spamexpire-201006.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>:

> None of the bank software I have seen has ever been written in Ada, much
> less Spark.

The Swiss PostFinance uses Ada. And they are not the only one.

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dirk Craeynest]

In article <e53f81c956a70a28ffbfdfeabd7606b6@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
in the Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.ada, Fritz Wuehler
<fritz@spamexpire-201006.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:

>None of the bank software I have seen has ever been written in Ada, much
>less Spark. It's is 100% COBOL. They may have front-ends written in all
>sorts of garbage languages (Java, etc.) but the financial processing is
>COBOL and there is still some amount of assembler around.

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html#Banking_and_Financial_Systems_

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-06-04, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201006.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>> > Banks get good software for their central money servers, because they
>> > insist that they actually work, and are secure, and spend the money to
>> > ensure that happens (and some of them are written in SPARK).
>> And the others ?
>
> None of the bank software I have seen has ever been written in Ada, much
> less Spark. It's is 100% COBOL. They may have front-ends written in all
> sorts of garbage languages (Java, etc.) but the financial processing is
> COBOL and there is still some amount of assembler around.
>
> Ada is better than COBOL except in one way. It is easier to write reports
> (the bulk of financial processing) and define decimal (money) fields in
> COBOL than Ada. It *could* have been used in financial processing, but
> COBOL had two decades and a half of a head start.
>

COBOL maybe! However, here in Canada, I'm aware that a lot of financial
institutions were set up to use Mumps (now M Technology) and they're still
using it. I believe the same is true in the U.S.A. Mumps is _still_ big in
the Health Care sector.
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Stephen Leake]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:08:06 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>
>> "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>> 
>>> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake
>>> <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a écrit:
>> 
>>> What is CMM ?
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
>> 
>>>> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane.
>>> I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean
>>> commercial applications or an airline company are typically more
>>> reliable than the  one its planes ?
>> 
>> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
>> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.
>
> I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. 

Just on the basis of news reports of the causes of airplane crashes. To
my memory, none have been due to software. 

> The technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a
> stochastic nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due
> to physical processes involved in production and function of the given
> component). On the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic,
> neither in its production nor at run-time. A given bug is either here
> or not. 

Whether the bug is encountered is sometimes stochastic. But generally
you are correct.

> There is no probability associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples
> and oranges?

Yes. And they are both fruits, and can be compared to some extent. It's
not like trying to compare science fiction novels and oil wells.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[tmoran]

>> The technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a
>> stochastic nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due
>> to physical processes involved in production and function of the given
>> component). On the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic,
>> neither in its production nor at run-time. A given bug is either here
>> or not.
>
>Whether the bug is encountered is sometimes stochastic. But generally
>you are correct.
  There are a set of bugs in a given piece of software.  On any given
day, there's a certainly probability that's when you will stumble
across one.  When you remove a bug you remove its probability component
so the total probability of going a day without a bug is now larger
(assuming any newly introduced bug is less likely than the removed one).
Bugs that are more likely to bite will be found and removed sooner,
so the rate of finding bugs will tend to drop.  This is all describable
with simple probability and statistics.  If you want to claim it's
"not stochastic" then I would claim neither is a physical fault - the
pressure applied today on the weak joint either is or is not sufficient
to cause a fracture, and metal fatigue weakening is a straightforward
physical process.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 6/4/10 9:23 PM, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> Ada is better than COBOL except in one way. It is easier to write reports
> (the bulk of financial processing) and define decimal (money) fields in
> COBOL than Ada. It *could* have been used in financial processing, but
> COBOL had two decades and a half of a head start.

How do Interfaces.COBOL and Ada.Text_IO.Editing fit in here?

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 06:13:59 +0000 (UTC), tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>>> The technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a
>>> stochastic nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due
>>> to physical processes involved in production and function of the given
>>> component). On the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic,
>>> neither in its production nor at run-time. A given bug is either here
>>> or not.
>>
>>Whether the bug is encountered is sometimes stochastic. But generally
>>you are correct.
>   There are a set of bugs in a given piece of software.  On any given
> day, there's a certainly probability that's when you will stumble
> across one.  When you remove a bug you remove its probability component
> so the total probability of going a day without a bug is now larger
> (assuming any newly introduced bug is less likely than the removed one).
> Bugs that are more likely to bite will be found and removed sooner,
> so the rate of finding bugs will tend to drop.  This is all describable
> with simple probability and statistics.

Yes, this is what I tried to describe in terms of program states.
(Encounter bug = program transits an "error state") The problem with this
is that it presumes that states are random, which are not, because [most
of] programs are deterministic. Any randomness which might exist is derived
from the inputs. I.e. it is the program usage, which makes the *same*
program less or more reliable. According to this approach the most reliable
car is one you do not drive. [You booted reliable Windows? That's your
fault! (:-))]

Another problem which worries me, is program changes. Let I modify the
program, the result is *another* program. How can I talk about the
"reliability" of what? Well, they share some code, but certainly we cannot
consider source lines random. E.g. Let I modify 0,01% of the source of 90%
"reliable" program. I can tell nothing about whether the result is 90%
reliable +/- factor * 0.01%. This model just does not work.

> If you want to claim it's
> "not stochastic" then I would claim neither is a physical fault - the
> pressure applied today on the weak joint either is or is not sufficient
> to cause a fracture, and metal fatigue weakening is a straightforward
> physical process.

Yes, one could say that physical components at some macro level have the
nature of a discrete deterministic system, i.e. function like programs do.
But the underlying processes and the process of "discretization"
(pressure>X) are stochastic.

Well, maybe the notion of reliability cannot be applied to complex physical
system? But on the other hand, the more complex system is more random its
behavior appears to the observer, looks like a paradox...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 5/20/2010 11:49 AM, Gautier write-only wrote:
> On May 20, 2:53 pm, Duke Normandin wrote:
>


>
>> and in what area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, graphics, etc?
>

> It is excellent in these areas, and probably in many others...
> _________________________________________________________

I think the fact that  complex numbers are not a build-in primitive data 
type in Ada makes it bit harder to use for number crunching.

Fortran, for example, had complex numbers build into the language.  I 
wonder why the orginal designers did not add complex data type to the 
design of Ada.

Other than that, I think Ada would be a very good choice for number 
crunching, but from what I see, it is very little used in this area.

--Nasser

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:00:07 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> Another problem which worries me, is program changes. Let I modify the
> program, the result is *another* program. How can I talk about the
> "reliability" of what? Well, they share some code, but certainly we  
> cannot
> consider source lines random. E.g. Let I modify 0,01% of the source of  
> 90%
> "reliable" program. I can tell nothing about whether the result is 90%
> reliable +/- factor * 0.01%. This model just does not work.
So this is chaotic (and there is a science which can talk about it too).

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:04:52 +0200, Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> a  
écrit:
>>> and in what area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number  
>>> crunching, graphics, etc?
>>
>
>> It is excellent in these areas, and probably in many others...
>> _________________________________________________________
>
> I think the fact that  complex numbers are not a build-in primitive data  
> type in Ada makes it bit harder to use for number crunching.
>
> Fortran, for example, had complex numbers build into the language.  I  
> wonder why the orginal designers did not add complex data type to the  
> design of Ada.
>
> Other than that, I think Ada would be a very good choice for number  
> crunching, but from what I see, it is very little used in this area.
>
> --Nasser
May be possible reason is that a complex number is seen a composite type,  
and how would one fix the type of its two component ? Float ? Fixed ? Both  
the same ? Different ? And so on. Unless with a special ugly/heavy syntax,  
difficult to image a way to simply declare a complex type in Ada (unless  
you do it the C way : one type for all use, without constraints, and no  
other choices).


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:16 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:00:07 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> Another problem which worries me, is program changes. Let I modify the
>> program, the result is *another* program. How can I talk about the
>> "reliability" of what? Well, they share some code, but certainly we  cannot
>> consider source lines random. E.g. Let I modify 0,01% of the source of  90%
>> "reliable" program. I can tell nothing about whether the result is 90%
>> reliable +/- factor * 0.01%. This model just does not work.
> So this is chaotic (and there is a science which can talk about it too).

Do you mean chaos theory here? In that context reliability must be
redefined. Well, I doubt that chaos theory could efficiently handle that.
Although most of programs as well as software developing processes are
indeed cyclic/iterative. One could try to apply the theory there.

Boarding a plane would you be glad to hear that the software developing
process used for its flight system wasn't random? It was CHAOTIC! (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:30:08 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> Boarding a plane would you be glad to hear that the software developing
> process used for its flight system wasn't random? It was CHAOTIC! (:-))
In some way (despite the fact is should be all avoided), yes: at least  
this is a sign that security matter know what to focus on. This end into a  
very different situation than the one where it could just be said said  
“really nobody know at all where a trouble is the most likely to occurs if  
one ever happened”.


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Simon Wright]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:

> Whether the bug is encountered is sometimes stochastic.

In particular this can be true of race conditions.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Simon Wright]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> May be possible reason is that a complex number is seen a composite
> type, and how would one fix the type of its two component ? Float ?
> Fixed ? Both the same ? Different ? And so on. Unless with a special
> ugly/heavy syntax, difficult to image a way to simply declare a
> complex type in Ada (unless you do it the C way : one type for all
> use, without constraints, and no other choices).

ARM Annex G? http://www.adaic.com/standards/05rm/html/RM-G-1.html

I'm not a mathematician (as a physicist) but I can't imagine why you
would want the two components of a complex number to have different base
types.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:24:57 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:04:52 +0200, Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> a  
> �crit:
>>>> and in what area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number  
>>>> crunching, graphics, etc?
>>
>>> It is excellent in these areas, and probably in many others...
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>
>> I think the fact that  complex numbers are not a build-in primitive data  
>> type in Ada makes it bit harder to use for number crunching.
>>
>> Fortran, for example, had complex numbers build into the language.  I  
>> wonder why the orginal designers did not add complex data type to the  
>> design of Ada.
>>
>> Other than that, I think Ada would be a very good choice for number  
>> crunching, but from what I see, it is very little used in this area.
>>
> May be possible reason is that a complex number is seen a composite type,  
> and how would one fix the type of its two component ? Float ? Fixed ? Both  
> the same ? Different ? And so on. Unless with a special ugly/heavy syntax,  
> difficult to image a way to simply declare a complex type in Ada (unless  
> you do it the C way : one type for all use, without constraints, and no  
> other choices).

Sorry guys, maybe I missed the point, but Ada does have complex types. See
ARM G.1.

As for different types of the real and imaginary parts, it would make
little or no sense because you can "rotate" numbers by multiplying them to
exp(j*angle). So the complex space must be isotropic with regard to
precision and range. This speaks for same types.

As for syntax, Ada syntax of record aggregates maps the standard
mathematical notation of, i.e. (Re, Im). Naturally Re+j*Im and Re+i*Im are
also supported since the package Complex_Types defines the constants i and
j.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:59:11 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> Sorry guys, maybe I missed the point, but Ada does have complex types.  
> See
> ARM G.1.
I miss-understood the question, indeed (don't know why I had read it this  
way, I had read it as if it was requesting for a type which could be  
declared like range and so on)

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 6/5/2010 5:59 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:


> Sorry guys, maybe I missed the point, but Ada does have complex types. See
> ARM G.1.
>

I meant complex type in ada is not an elementary type. as in

http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-3-2.html

"The elementary types are the scalar types (discrete and real) and the 
access  types (whose values provide access to objects or subprograms). 
Discrete types are either integer types or are defined by enumeration of 
their values (enumeration types). Real types are either floating point 
types or fixed point types."

and

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Type_System

I copied the list from above:

"Here is a broad overview of each category of types; please follow the 
links for detailed explanations. Inside parenthesis there are 
equivalences in C and Pascal for readers familiar with those languages."

Signed Integers (int, INTEGER)
Unsigned Integers (unsigned, CARDINAL)
unsigned they also have wrap-around functionality.
Enumerations (enum, char, bool, BOOLEAN)
Floating point (float, double, REAL)
Ordinary and Decimal Fixed Point (DECIMAL)
Arrays ( [ ], ARRAY [ ] OF, STRING )
Record (struct, class, RECORD OF)
Access (*, ^, POINTER TO)
Task & Protected (no equivalence in C or Pascal)
Interfaces (no equivalence in C or Pascal)

I do not see complex type there :)

Ofcourse, a standard generic package for complex type, I knew that.

In FORTRAN:

http://www.fortran.com/F77_std/rjcnf-4.html#sh-4

"4.1 Data Types
The six types of data are:

    1. Integer
    2. Real
    3. Double precision
    4. Complex
    5. Logical
    6. Character

"

So, complex is an elementary type, like an integer is.

I am learning to use complex numbers in Ada from wiki Ada book, was 
looking at the examples here:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Mathematical_calculations#Complex_arithmethic

and it seem many packages need to be instantiated just to use complex 
numbers.

with Ada.Text_IO.Complex_IO;
with Ada.Numerics.Generic_Complex_Types;
with Ada.Numerics.Generic_Complex_Elementary_Functions;

etc..

I just meant it seems "easier" to use complex numbers in FORTRAN than 
Ada, just because one does not to do all this instantiating every where. 
But I hope to learn to use complex numbers better in Ada, I have very 
little experiences with this in Ada.

--Nasser

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[tmoran]

>is that it presumes that states are random, which are not, because [most
>of] programs are deterministic. Any randomness which might exist is derived
>from the inputs. I.e. it is the program usage, which makes the *same*
>program less or more reliable. According to this approach the most reliable
>car is one you do not drive.
  Mechanical devices also fail due to unfortunate, unanticipated,
combinations of random inputs.  Rockets don't fail in the middle of the
night sitting in the assembly building.  They fail when, for instance, the
air temperature is very low and the rocket is on full thrust and with
those inputs the O-ring can't sufficiently do its job.  You don't say
"O-rings are or are not reliable" - you say "under such and such
conditions O-rings are 99.9999% likely to prevent dangerous amounts of
leakage.  Under such and such other inputs, that drops to 99.9%,
or 90%, or 10%."

> ... E.g. Let I modify 0,01% of the source of 90%
> "reliable" program. I can tell nothing about whether the result is 90%
> reliable +/- factor * 0.01%. This model just does not work.
   The word "model" is key.  It is meaningless to talk about whether
something, software or hardware, *is* stochastic - but one can observe
whether a stochastic *model* of the system is helpful or not.
   As to program changes, one talks about how confident you are that the
program will not hit a bug today, as compared to yesterday before you made
the change.  Your confidence will depend not just on the fraction of
source code changed, but also on careful consideration of the nature and
expected effects of the change, and observations while testing the changed
version.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Robert A Duff]

"Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> writes:

> I meant complex type in ada is not an elementary type.

Complex cannot be an elementary type, because it has components
(real and imaginary parts).  That's what "elementary" means
in Ada -- no components.

> I just meant it seems "easier" to use complex numbers in FORTRAN than
> Ada, just because one does not to do all this instantiating every
> where.

You don't have to instantiate everywhere.  If you're willing to stick
to the predefined floating point types (Float, Long_Float, etc),
then you can use Ada.Numerics.Elementary_Functions,
Ada.Numerics.Long_Elementary_Functions, etc.

And of course if you're NOT willing to stick to the predefined floating
point types, then you won't be using Fortran anyway, so there's no
comparison.

Is there anything else?  I mean reasons why complex in Fortran
is "easier" than in Ada?

- Bob

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:02:36 -0700, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:

> On 6/5/2010 5:59 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
> 
>> Sorry guys, maybe I missed the point, but Ada does have complex types. See
>> ARM G.1.
>>
> I meant complex type in ada is not an elementary type. as in

BTW, as the name suggest "complex" is not "elementary"! (:-))

> http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-3-2.html
> 
> "The elementary types are the scalar types (discrete and real) and the 
> access  types (whose values provide access to objects or subprograms). 
> Discrete types are either integer types or are defined by enumeration of 
> their values (enumeration types). Real types are either floating point 
> types or fixed point types."

Well, in fact I don't know why ARM defines that, because beyond the name
there is nothing that could distinguish them from other types.

> and
> 
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Type_System
> 
> I copied the list from above:
> 
> "Here is a broad overview of each category of types; please follow the 
> links for detailed explanations. Inside parenthesis there are 
> equivalences in C and Pascal for readers familiar with those languages."
> 
> Signed Integers (int, INTEGER)
> Unsigned Integers (unsigned, CARDINAL)
> unsigned they also have wrap-around functionality.
> Enumerations (enum, char, bool, BOOLEAN)
> Floating point (float, double, REAL)
> Ordinary and Decimal Fixed Point (DECIMAL)
> Arrays ( [ ], ARRAY [ ] OF, STRING )
> Record (struct, class, RECORD OF)
> Access (*, ^, POINTER TO)
> Task & Protected (no equivalence in C or Pascal)
> Interfaces (no equivalence in C or Pascal)
> 
> I do not see complex type there :)

Same as above. Some of these are classes of types some are not. To be sure,
complex is not a type you can derive from. But Integer isn't either. It
cannot be constrained, but that does not make much sense anyway, and
records cannot be constrained as well. It is not a formal generic class of
types, neither are records.
 
> Ofcourse, a standard generic package for complex type, I knew that.
> 
> In FORTRAN:
> 
> http://www.fortran.com/F77_std/rjcnf-4.html#sh-4
> 
> "4.1 Data Types
> The six types of data are:
> 
>     1. Integer
>     2. Real
>     3. Double precision
>     4. Complex
>     5. Logical
>     6. Character
> 
> "
> 
> So, complex is an elementary type, like an integer is.

Maybe, but what does it mean semantically?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:59:36 +0000 (UTC), tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>>is that it presumes that states are random, which are not, because [most
>>of] programs are deterministic. Any randomness which might exist is derived
>>from the inputs. I.e. it is the program usage, which makes the *same*
>>program less or more reliable. According to this approach the most reliable
>>car is one you do not drive.
>   Mechanical devices also fail due to unfortunate, unanticipated,
> combinations of random inputs.  Rockets don't fail in the middle of the
> night sitting in the assembly building.  They fail when, for instance, the
> air temperature is very low and the rocket is on full thrust and with
> those inputs the O-ring can't sufficiently do its job.  You don't say
> "O-rings are or are not reliable" - you say "under such and such
> conditions O-rings are 99.9999% likely to prevent dangerous amounts of
> leakage.  Under such and such other inputs, that drops to 99.9%,
> or 90%, or 10%."

That is the difference. if you fixed the inputs/environment there still
would be a probability of fault. A Maxwell's daemon sits inside each of
these things deciding if he let you go or not. There is nothing in, say,
integer addition. If you fixed the inputs it would either overflow or not.
 
>> ... E.g. Let I modify 0,01% of the source of 90%
>> "reliable" program. I can tell nothing about whether the result is 90%
>> reliable +/- factor * 0.01%. This model just does not work.
>    The word "model" is key.  It is meaningless to talk about whether
> something, software or hardware, *is* stochastic - but one can observe
> whether a stochastic *model* of the system is helpful or not.

Hmm, I think a physicist would strongly disagree with that. AFAIK, there is
no working deterministic models of quantum processes.

>    As to program changes, one talks about how confident you are that the
> program will not hit a bug today, as compared to yesterday before you made
> the change.

Maybe, but

1. Confidence has nothing to do with probability. It is an absolutely
different model of uncertainly. That returns us to the square one.
Confidences and probabilities are incomparable.

2. Your confidence describes you, it does not the program. It fact, it is
like - I give my word, it works. Fine, but why anybody should trust my
word?

> Your confidence will depend not just on the fraction of
> source code changed, but also on careful consideration of the nature and
> expected effects of the change, and observations while testing the changed
> version.

No, it will not, because you defined it as confidence. If there is
something behind it, then why confidence? Name that thing, and define
reliability in terms of that. The problem that there seems nothing there,
except for confidences of other people.

BTW, this is my concern about software certification procedures. It fact,
they act quite as you suggested. They certify programmers, they don't the
software.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[(see below)]

On 05/06/2010 19:50, in article wcchblh9uw6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com,
"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

> "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> writes:
> 
>> I meant complex type in ada is not an elementary type.
> 
> Complex cannot be an elementary type, because it has components
> (real and imaginary parts).  That's what "elementary" means
> in Ada -- no components.
> 
>> I just meant it seems "easier" to use complex numbers in FORTRAN than
>> Ada, just because one does not to do all this instantiating every
>> where.
> 
> You don't have to instantiate everywhere.  If you're willing to stick
> to the predefined floating point types (Float, Long_Float, etc),
> then you can use Ada.Numerics.Elementary_Functions,
> Ada.Numerics.Long_Elementary_Functions, etc.

I've never understood the objection to "all this instantiating every where".
How much effort is a line or three of boilerplate code?

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[John B. Matthews]

In article <hudsf0$41p$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
 "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> wrote:

> I am learning to use complex numbers in Ada from wiki Ada book, was 
> looking at the examples here:
> 
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Mathematical_calculations#Complex_arithmethic

You might also like the examples in this project:

<http://home.roadrunner.com/~jbmatthews/misc/groots.html>

The test driver (croot.adb) only instantiates one generic, the 
Generic_Roots procedure itself; others are predefined in the library, 
as described in ARM G.1.1(25/1):

<http://www.adaic.com/standards/05rm/html/RM-G-1-1.html>

I avoid use clauses, preferring renames, although tastes vary:

   package NCT renames Ada.Numerics.Long_Complex_Types;
   package NCA renames Ada.Numerics.Long_Complex_Arrays;

A use type clause makes the operators visible:

   use type Ada.Numerics.Long_Complex_Types.Complex;


-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[tmoran]

> >    The word "model" is key.  It is meaningless to talk about whether
> > something, software or hardware, *is* stochastic - but one can observe
> > whether a stochastic *model* of the system is helpful or not.
>
> Hmm, I think a physicist would strongly disagree with that. AFAIK, there is
> no working deterministic models of quantum processes.
  A fair number of physicists have tried to find a hidden-variable
deterministic version of quantum mechanics.  In the meantime, engineers
quite successfully used the probabilistic model to build working devices.

> 1. Confidence has nothing to do with probability. It is an absolutely
> different model of uncertainly. That returns us to the square one.
> Confidences and probabilities are incomparable.
>
> 2. Your confidence describes you, it does not the program. It fact, it is
> like - I give my word, it works. Fine, but why anybody should trust my
> word?
   We fundamentally differ.  I use statistical decision theory, which
takes costs of outcomes and *estimated probabilities* of outcomes, to make
decisions.  All I have is my best estimates, ie, confidence levels.  I
don't know the "absolute probability" of an event, and if you define that
by frequency of occurrence, you really need to wait till the end of the
universe to finally nail that down.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Maciej Sobczak]

On 5 Cze, 14:59, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> As for different types of the real and imaginary parts, it would make
> little or no sense because you can "rotate" numbers by multiplying them to
> exp(j*angle).

Nobody said that such a "rotation" must make sense in every single
application domain. If it does not make sense in a given domain, then
it does not have to be supported.
I can perfectly imagine a domain where only the addition/substraction
operation for complex and multiplying/dividing complex by scalar are
necessary.

> So the complex space must be isotropic

So it does not have to be and Ada, as a language that promotes careful
selection of types for the given purpose, would be more consistent by
allowing separate base types for both components.
Otherwise the model is simplified. Not necessarily bad, but certainly
simplified.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

YAMI4 - Messaging Solution for Distributed Systems
http://www.inspirel.com/yami4

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[starwars]

> How do Interfaces.COBOL and Ada.Text_IO.Editing fit in here?

The support is there to do the work, it's just much harder and uglier to do
in Ada than COBOL. COBOL has built-in types for money  and editing (COMP-3)
but in Ada you have to have the Data Processing Annex and unfortunately
many toolchains don't offer it. Even with the support, it's painful to do
financial reporting on a large scale in Ada. COBOL wins here. It should, it
was designed specifically for this above all else.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Robert A Duff]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> BTW, as the name suggest "complex" is not "elementary"! (:-))

The name Generic_Complex_Elementary_Functions is amusing
(see G.1.2).  ;-)

> Well, in fact I don't know why ARM defines that, because beyond the name
> there is nothing that could distinguish them from other types.

Well, elementary types are pass-by-copy, but you're basically right
-- there's not much to distinguish them from composite types.

- Bob

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Non scrivetemi]

> COBOL maybe! However, here in Canada, I'm aware that a lot of financial
> institutions were set up to use Mumps (now M Technology) and they're still
> using it. I believe the same is true in the U.S.A. Mumps is _still_ big in
> the Health Care sector.

Yes, only in H/C. No American bank uses MUMPS.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:59:58 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> BTW, this is my concern about software certification procedures. It fact,
> they act quite as you suggested. They certify programmers, they don't the
> software.
What is this named “software certification” then ? Are you sure you are  
not talking about some non-glorious example only ? Or is it really common ?


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:02:36 +0200, Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> a  
écrit:
> I meant complex type in ada is not an elementary type. as in
So this was indeed about to have Complex beside Integer and others.

To keep it simple : it is not elementary, because it can be built using  
more elementary things, so this is not really elementary. If something can  
be created using something else, it is not so much elementary.

May be the matter is efficiency so ? But as there is no low-level support  
for Complex in any architecture I know (I have never heard about a CPU  
with a Complex number instructions set), there is no way to formally  
assert it is less efficient as a composite type. And if ever a CPU support  
it, an implementation may always be able to get benefit from any dedicated  
CPU instructions in its implementation of Complex.

Note: I heard to say FORTRAN specifications of Real numbers is more  
relaxed than Ada ones and have less requirements. If there is ever an  
efficiency gap between FORTRAN and Ada, perhaps this can simply be  
explained by their different requirement with Real numbers ?

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-06-05, Non scrivetemi <nonscrivetemi@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>> COBOL maybe! However, here in Canada, I'm aware that a lot of financial
>> institutions were set up to use Mumps (now M Technology) and they're still
>> using it. I believe the same is true in the U.S.A. Mumps is _still_ big in
>> the Health Care sector.
>
> Yes, only in H/C. No American bank uses MUMPS.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Are you sure?  I've heard differently from MUMPS folks.
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:16 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

>> So this is chaotic (and there is a science which can talk about it
>> too).

> Do you mean chaos theory here?

I don't think "chaos theory" as such is the right answer, but some of
the tools developed to analyse and model complex systems may be able to
help us put some numbers on the risks involved in changing software.

As far as I know, nobody has done this yet, but it is definitely
interesting.

> In that context reliability must be redefined. Well, I doubt that
> chaos theory could efficiently handle that.  Although most of programs
> as well as software developing processes are indeed
> cyclic/iterative. One could try to apply the theory there.

I don't think it is development process as much as it is the
interconnectedness of the produced software which is interesting.

> Boarding a plane would you be glad to hear that the software
> developing process used for its flight system wasn't random? It was
> CHAOTIC! (:-))

:-)

Jacob
-- 
"It ain't rocket science!"

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:41:47 +0000 (UTC), tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>>>    The word "model" is key.  It is meaningless to talk about whether
>>> something, software or hardware, *is* stochastic - but one can observe
>>> whether a stochastic *model* of the system is helpful or not.
>>
>> Hmm, I think a physicist would strongly disagree with that. AFAIK, there is
>> no working deterministic models of quantum processes.
>   A fair number of physicists have tried to find a hidden-variable
> deterministic version of quantum mechanics.  In the meantime, engineers
> quite successfully used the probabilistic model to build working devices.

Yes, the modern understanding is that things are inherently random.

>> 1. Confidence has nothing to do with probability. It is an absolutely
>> different model of uncertainly. That returns us to the square one.
>> Confidences and probabilities are incomparable.
>>
>> 2. Your confidence describes you, it does not the program. It fact, it is
>> like - I give my word, it works. Fine, but why anybody should trust my
>> word?
>    We fundamentally differ.  I use statistical decision theory, which
> takes costs of outcomes and *estimated probabilities* of outcomes, to make
> decisions.

Ah, I thought you meant "confidence factors", but it seems that you did
"confidence intervals"?

> All I have is my best estimates, ie, confidence levels.  I
> don't know the "absolute probability" of an event, and if you define that
> by frequency of occurrence, you really need to wait till the end of the
> universe to finally nail that down.

No problem, confidence interval is perfectly OK. The probability itself
tells nothing about next occurrence.

The problem is that to apply this theory to software you need maybe,
imaginary space of elementary outcomes (independent, complete etc). I don't
see any of that in the software. It is a fundamental issue. What is the
probability that the 100_000th decimal position of Pi is 5? 0.1? Rubbish,
it is not a random variable!

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:46:29 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:59:58 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> BTW, this is my concern about software certification procedures. It fact,
>> they act quite as you suggested. They certify programmers, they don't the
>> software.
> What is this named “software certification” then ? Are you sure you are  
> not talking about some non-glorious example only ? Or is it really common ?

I had talks with certification authority guys, and my overall impression is
what I said. But you better ask people who have more experience with that.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:14:53 +0100, (see below) wrote:

> I've never understood the objection to "all this instantiating every where".
> How much effort is a line or three of boilerplate code?

Geometrically exploding...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:25:59 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> I've never understood the objection to "all this instantiating every  
>> where".
>> How much effort is a line or three of boilerplate code?
>
> Geometrically exploding...
As this is about genericity, I would like to understand: what kind of  
curve is one “Geometrically exploding” ? I could not find a simple  
explanation on the web and don't have anything in my background about it.

I remember in the past (past year I think), we talked around generics  
hierarchy and generic packages as formal parameters. You had warned about  
possible complexity explosion in this area: is this about the same ?

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 14:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> On 5 Cze, 14:59, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> As for different types of the real and imaginary parts, it would make
>> little or no sense because you can "rotate" numbers by multiplying them to
>> exp(j*angle).
> 
> Nobody said that such a "rotation" must make sense in every single
> application domain. If it does not make sense in a given domain, then
> it does not have to be supported.

No, in this case the domain is set, it the complex field.

> I can perfectly imagine a domain where only the addition/substraction
> operation for complex and multiplying/dividing complex by scalar are
> necessary.

Yes, that would be a different model of complex numbers. But the same
argument applies to any numerical type. There may be cases where
floating-point is unsuitable.

>> So the complex space must be isotropic
> 
> So it does not have to be and Ada, as a language that promotes careful
> selection of types for the given purpose, would be more consistent by
> allowing separate base types for both components.

Polar representations were far more useful, or complex intervals
(rectangular, elliptic), to name some.

> Otherwise the model is simplified. Not necessarily bad, but certainly
> simplified.

You cannot have a model for each case. This is why I keep on arguing for a
better type system, where you could define your own models implementing
abstract classes like, in this case, complex field.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:38:21 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:25:59 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>>> I've never understood the objection to "all this instantiating every  
>>> where".
>>> How much effort is a line or three of boilerplate code?
>>
>> Geometrically exploding...
> As this is about genericity, I would like to understand: what kind of  
> curve is one “Geometrically exploding” ?

= exponentially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression

> I remember in the past (past year I think), we talked around generics  
> hierarchy and generic packages as formal parameters. You had warned about  
> possible complexity explosion in this area: is this about the same ?

Yep. Once generic always generic. Two generics make four instantiations.
And the mill starts milling...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:46:28 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> = exponentially
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
OK, a quasi-synonym

>> I remember in the past (past year I think), we talked around generics
>> hierarchy and generic packages as formal parameters. You had warned  
>> about
>> possible complexity explosion in this area: is this about the same ?
>
> Yep. Once generic always generic. Two generics make four instantiations.
> And the mill starts milling...
This path is not the only one way. There can be instantiations to be used  
as basic components. Generics does not provide just a way to declare  
things, this also gives a way to implement, and implementation is an  
hidden thing (or else private at least). Generic origin of a type can be  
hidden (as an example) ; while obviously, some relationships are then lost.

This can lead into an combinatorial explosion, right ; except “can” is not  
“always” (while I agree to say it can comes faster than supposed, and  
recurrence/recursivity should be in mind here while designing).

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:25:11 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:46:28 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> = exponentially
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
> OK, a quasi-synonym

And, maybe, you have a chance of having it not geometric, but
combinatorial... (:-))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion

>>> I remember in the past (past year I think), we talked around generics
>>> hierarchy and generic packages as formal parameters. You had warned  
>>> about
>>> possible complexity explosion in this area: is this about the same ?
>>
>> Yep. Once generic always generic. Two generics make four instantiations.
>> And the mill starts milling...
> This path is not the only one way. There can be instantiations to be used  
> as basic components. Generics does not provide just a way to declare  
> things, this also gives a way to implement, and implementation is an  
> hidden thing (or else private at least). Generic origin of a type can be  
> hidden (as an example) ; while obviously, some relationships are then lost.
> 
> This can lead into an combinatorial explosion, right ; except “can” is not  
> “always” (while I agree to say it can comes faster than supposed, and  
> recurrence/recursivity should be in mind here while designing).

Normally you wanted to postpone instantiation to as late as possible. But
any delayed instantiation means a generic formal parameter in another
generics and so it leads to the explosion at the point where you ultimately
instantiate the mess. This is not a problem for small projects. That is why
most Ada people don't see generics as a problem.

Add here that generics are non-testable. You can test instances, you cannot
generics. Then Ada has been drifting towards C++ in the sense what promises
gives you a successful compilation of the generic body, little, very
little, nothing...

But if you force yourself to instantiate earlier, you get a very fragile
design. Generics are against good design.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Simon Wright]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> 2. Your confidence describes you, it does not the program. It fact, it
> is like - I give my word, it works. Fine, but why anybody should trust
> my word?

Because you are a gentleman? (sorry -- been re-watching Lost In Austen!)

Because you have given your word in the past and it has proved
trustworthy?

Because you are a member of a professional organisation (eg, chartered
engineer)?

Because you've been following appropriate review processes?

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:22:07 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> But if you force yourself to instantiate earlier, you get a very fragile
Don't see a reason why ; and this even seems contradictory to me: the  
earlier you instantiate, the less complex it is. Or not ?

> design. Generics are against good design.
Suppose that is true, then this suggest to choose to use generic is a bad  
design choice. An example objection could be, when a generic is used,  
other ways may have been evaluated and excluded for some reasons. Or is  
Ada missing something so that people don't have any other choice than  
generic (generic as a fall-back) ? What could this other paradigm could  
looks like then ? (George would be interested in this I suppose)

In the area of other choices, would automatic generation or simply copy be  
a better choice (as this is one of the cases generics avoid) ? I feel it  
would be even less usable.

Your comments suggest this interesting question about what could be  
alternatives to generics.

> Add here that generics are non-testable. You can test instances, you
> cannot generics. Then Ada has been drifting towards C++ in the sense
> what promises gives you a successful compilation of the generic
> body, little, very little, nothing...
(another matter this one)
This is not like if generics could be instantiated with anything.  
Actually, this is not: you can require a formal parameter to be a discrete  
type, to be derived from another type, etc. So some assertions can be made  
on the validity of a generic's logic and implementation. Perhaps you are  
requesting for more ways to constrain formal parameters ? (I would agree  
with you, unless SPARK already support generics, which I have still not  
tested so far).

Oops, I have implicitly replaced “testable” by “provable”, hope you don't  
mind.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:22:41 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> 2. Your confidence describes you, it does not the program. It fact, it
>> is like - I give my word, it works. Fine, but why anybody should trust
>> my word?
> 
> Because you are a gentleman? (sorry -- been re-watching Lost In Austen!)

A measure of being gentleman?

> Because you have given your word in the past and it has proved
> trustworthy?

Proved how, means, measures? BTW, statistics isn't applicable here either.
Let you write the same program 100 times. What is the probability that you
won't make a mistake X? It is not a probability. The code deviation after
stripping factors of learning, tiredness, disgust, rebellion is null.

> Because you are a member of a professional organisation (eg, chartered
> engineer)?

Substitutes words of other people for mine. (And be sure, they use mine in
support of theirs! (:-))

> Because you've been following appropriate review processes?

Made by other members of the clique, by state bureaucrats? 

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:06:45 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:22:07 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> But if you force yourself to instantiate earlier, you get a very fragile
> Don't see a reason why ; and this even seems contradictory to me: the  
> earlier you instantiate, the less complex it is. Or not ?

Less complex and more fragile, because of premature decisions to meet. The
package Generic_Complex_Types requires the type Real to instantiate. You
have to define this type, range, precision etc. Later on, if the choice
might appear wrong, you will have a huge problem, if the instance is widely
used. A typical solution is to pass the instance as a parameter of another
generics. Welcome to the Hell...

> An example objection could be, when a generic is used,  
> other ways may have been evaluated and excluded for some reasons.

Right, just like gotos.

> Or is  
> Ada missing something so that people don't have any other choice than  
> generic (generic as a fall-back) ? What could this other paradigm could  
> looks like then ?

Dynamic polymorphism, abstract types, interface inheritance, constraining
(discriminants), static functions.

> In the area of other choices, would automatic generation or simply copy be  
> a better choice (as this is one of the cases generics avoid) ? I feel it  
> would be even less usable.

Probably yes. Macro is a macro, even if you call it generics or template.

>> Add here that generics are non-testable. You can test instances, you
>> cannot generics. Then Ada has been drifting towards C++ in the sense
>> what promises gives you a successful compilation of the generic
>> body, little, very little, nothing...
> (another matter this one)
> This is not like if generics could be instantiated with anything.  
> Actually, this is not: you can require a formal parameter to be a discrete  
> type, to be derived from another type, etc.

Yes. The language of generics regarding its formal parameters:

C++: untyped
Ada: typed, types are built-in, no abstract/user types whatsoever
Must-be: ADT + OO

... too much work to invest into a meta language. Why not to concentrate on
the object language, i.e. on the core Ada type system?

> So some assertions can be made  
> on the validity of a generic's logic and implementation.

Some, but as I said Ada drifts towards less checks. You can (and will) get
errors upon instantiation even if actual parameters match the formals!

> Perhaps you are  
> requesting for more ways to constrain formal parameters ? (I would agree  
> with you, unless SPARK already support generics, which I have still not  
> tested so far).
> 
> Oops, I have implicitly replaced “testable” by “provable”, hope you don't  
> mind.

I do. If you'd make them provable you would need not to test. The problem
is that for generics provability is much harder than for the object
language. The same question again. Why not to concentrate on the core Ada
and integrate SPARK there?

To me generics is a dead end.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:45:48 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> Less complex and more fragile, because of premature decisions to meet.  
> The
> package Generic_Complex_Types requires the type Real to instantiate. You
> have to define this type, range, precision etc. Later on, if the choice
> might appear wrong, you will have a huge problem, if the instance is  
> widely
> used. A typical solution is to pass the instance as a parameter of  
> another
> generics. Welcome to the Hell...

> Dynamic polymorphism, abstract types, interface inheritance, constraining
> (discriminants), static functions.
I guess for Complex you would like constraining discriminants.
The funny part is that I actually see generics as a way to define ADT.

> Probably yes. Macro is a macro, even if you call it generics or template.
You can pass anything to macro. Generics are safer at least for this  
reason.

> Yes. The language of generics regarding its formal parameters:
OK. I understand what you have in mind.

> I do. If you'd make them provable you would need not to test. The problem
> is that for generics provability is much harder than for the object
> language. The same question again. Why not to concentrate on the core Ada
> and integrate SPARK there?
Would be great! :-) (would have to make SPARK a bit more predictable by  
the way... I have some idea in the area of SPARK, but this would make it  
different than what it actually is, and I feel this would be a lonesome  
story)

Finally we end up in this oooold story about Ada, the most famous Ada  
issue : right at the beginning, someones were already suggesting to focus  
on a more core language, to better focus on what is the most relevant.

> Some, but as I said Ada drifts towards less checks.
Really ? I don't feel so much and don't believe most interested parties  
will allow it.
The introduction of DbC in the Ada 2012 language itself, even goes the  
opposite way. Isn't it ?

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:38:21 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> I guess for Complex you would like constraining discriminants.

I would rather like to see Complex an implementation of field. We need
working interfaces instead of Java-like mess.

> The funny part is that I actually see generics as a way to define ADT.

A very poor way.

>> Probably yes. Macro is a macro, even if you call it generics or template.
> You can pass anything to macro. Generics are safer at least for this  
> reason.

To put a hand grenade in your pocket, is safer than in the mouth...
 
>> Some, but as I said Ada drifts towards less checks.
> Really ? I don't feel so much and don't believe most interested parties  
> will allow it.
> The introduction of DbC in the Ada 2012 language itself, even goes the  
> opposite way. Isn't it ?

You forgot that run-time check is not a check to me. It is a language
design bug. I am afraid I will like Ada 2012 even less than Ada 2005.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Simon Wright]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:22:41 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> 
>>> 2. Your confidence describes you, it does not the program. It fact, it
>>> is like - I give my word, it works. Fine, but why anybody should trust
>>> my word?
>> 
>> Because you are a gentleman? (sorry -- been re-watching Lost In Austen!)
>
> A measure of being gentleman?

This was meant to be a joke, apologies. More-or-less in this sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman#Gentleman_by_conduct

>> Because you have given your word in the past and it has proved
>> trustworthy?
>
> Proved how, means, measures? BTW, statistics isn't applicable here either.
> Let you write the same program 100 times. What is the probability that you
> won't make a mistake X? It is not a probability. The code deviation after
> stripping factors of learning, tiredness, disgust, rebellion is null.

'proved' might not have been the right word. I meant, if you are the
release manager for a project and receive an updated package from a
developer, you'll have a degree of trust in the suitability of the
update which depends on how reliable that developer has been in the
past.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Fritz Wuehler]

> > Yes, only in H/C. No American bank uses MUMPS.
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Are you sure?  I've heard differently from MUMPS folks.

Pretty sure. There may be the odd ball out there but 99.9% run IBM z/OS or
VSE. If they say otherwise let them name names.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:58:20 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:22:41 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
>>
>>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>>> 
>>>> 2. Your confidence describes you, it does not the program. It fact, it
>>>> is like - I give my word, it works. Fine, but why anybody should trust
>>>> my word?
>>> 
>>> Because you are a gentleman? (sorry -- been re-watching Lost In Austen!)
>>
>> A measure of being gentleman?
> 
> This was meant to be a joke, apologies. More-or-less in this sense:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman#Gentleman_by_conduct
> 
>>> Because you have given your word in the past and it has proved
>>> trustworthy?
>>
>> Proved how, means, measures? BTW, statistics isn't applicable here either.
>> Let you write the same program 100 times. What is the probability that you
>> won't make a mistake X? It is not a probability. The code deviation after
>> stripping factors of learning, tiredness, disgust, rebellion is null.
> 
> 'proved' might not have been the right word. I meant, if you are the
> release manager for a project and receive an updated package from a
> developer, you'll have a degree of trust in the suitability of the
> update which depends on how reliable that developer has been in the
> past.

This all does not go beyond confidence factors (AKA truth values). There is
no way to estimate a confidence factor otherwise than by an expert poll.
The ways evidences are combined are quite ad-hoc. Now, how to translate
this into decision making?

Input: confidence 0.78
Output: the project will be completed in 2 months

Input: confidence 0.78
Output: next engine maintenance is required after 462 flight hours

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[tmoran]

>The problem is that to apply this theory to software you need maybe,
>imaginary space of elementary outcomes (independent, complete etc). I don't
>see any of that in the software. It is a fundamental issue.
  The number of bugs in a certain piece of software is analogous to the
number of unexploded WWII bombs buried in Berlin.  There are a certain,
unknown, number, and next Wednesday none, or at least one, will be
discovered.  But the probability of discovering a bug, or a bomb, is a
number which can be guesstimated.  And the size of that probability
informs our decision about whether to launch the rocket that depends on
that software, or whether to disband the bomb squad.  In the real world
you can't throw up your hands and say "I don't know the probability"
because someone will ask "OK, should we launch/disband or not?" and you
need to give an answer.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 6/6/10 3:10 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>>> Some, but as I said Ada drifts towards less checks.
>> Really ? I don't feel so much and don't believe most interested parties
>> will allow it.
>> The introduction of DbC in the Ada 2012 language itself, even goes the
>> opposite way. Isn't it ?
>
> You forgot that run-time check is not a check to me. It is a language
> design bug. I am afraid I will like Ada 2012 even less than Ada 2005.

It seems worthwhile mentioning that DbC's primary purpose
is not to augment programs with run-time checks; rather, DbC asks
for programmers who write as if there was no assertion monitoring
but who explain their code with pre/post/inv.  The operator may
turn on run-time monitoring so that he/she is notified if something goes
wrong (disproving the programmers' assumptions; the monitor stops
the program or runs the remains in a debugger).

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Duke Normandin]

On 2010-06-06, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201006.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>> > Yes, only in H/C. No American bank uses MUMPS.
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Are you sure?  I've heard differently from MUMPS folks.
>
> Pretty sure. There may be the odd ball out there but 99.9% run IBM z/OS or
> VSE. If they say otherwise let them name names.
>

Look here:

http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1_MUMPSVM_MUMPS-VM

MUMPS (the language/database) has run and continues to run, on _many_
platforms, including z/OS. Which means that perhaps the MUMPS hackers still
know of what they speak, although I have zero first-hand knowledge on the
banking software in the U.S.A. 
-- 
Duke Normandin 
*** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** 

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Non scrivetemi]

> http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1_MUMPSVM_MUMPS-VM
> 
> MUMPS (the language/database) has run and continues to run, on _many_
> platforms, including z/OS. Which means that perhaps the MUMPS hackers
> still know of what they speak, although I have zero first-hand knowledge
> on the banking software in the U.S.A. 

I don't know of any American bank that uses it and I work with hundreds of
banks. Like I said there may be some oddballs but no major operation is
going to mess around with that stuff.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:22:15 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 6/6/10 3:10 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>>> Some, but as I said Ada drifts towards less checks.
>>> Really ? I don't feel so much and don't believe most interested parties
>>> will allow it.
>>> The introduction of DbC in the Ada 2012 language itself, even goes the
>>> opposite way. Isn't it ?
>>
>> You forgot that run-time check is not a check to me. It is a language
>> design bug. I am afraid I will like Ada 2012 even less than Ada 2005.
> 
> It seems worthwhile mentioning that DbC's primary purpose
> is not to augment programs with run-time checks; rather, DbC asks
> for programmers who write as if there was no assertion monitoring
> but who explain their code with pre/post/inv.  The operator may
> turn on run-time monitoring so that he/she is notified if something goes
> wrong (disproving the programmers' assumptions; the monitor stops
> the program or runs the remains in a debugger).

Yes, and this manifests a language design bug to me.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:27:48 +0000 (UTC), tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>>The problem is that to apply this theory to software you need maybe,
>>imaginary space of elementary outcomes (independent, complete etc). I don't
>>see any of that in the software. It is a fundamental issue.
>   The number of bugs in a certain piece of software is analogous to the
> number of unexploded WWII bombs buried in Berlin.

No. Both are realizations of some process. The latter was to some extent
random, the former was not. If you drop bombs from the same spot they will
distribute themselves in some area. If you rewrite a line of code, you
introduce the same bug or no bug each time. The way how the source code
line N receives a bug M is not random. Lines are not equivalent in their
affinity to bugs. Bugs are not necessarily located in a single line. Bugs
are not necessary located in adjacent lines. Bugs are not same, and so on
and so forth.

> There are a certain,
> unknown, number, and next Wednesday none, or at least one, will be
> discovered.  But the probability of discovering a bug, or a bomb, is a
> number which can be guesstimated.

OK, that is yet another process. It only makes things more complicated. The
way bombs are discovered could be considered stochastic, however I am not
very sure about it. As for bugs, it is certainly not stochastic. But in any
case the discovery process tells nothing about the software itself. You
need some theory/model in order to be able to say that if the bug discovery
rate was Rn-3, Rn-2, Rn-1, Rn, then it is to expect the next rate
Rn=f(Rn-3, Rn-2, Rn-1, Rn). I don't see any such theory. And it seems to me
that it cannot be mathematical statistics, at least prior to a
probabilistic model of bugs (not their discovery process).

> And the size of that probability
> informs our decision about whether to launch the rocket that depends on
> that software, or whether to disband the bomb squad.  In the real world
> you can't throw up your hands and say "I don't know the probability"
> because someone will ask "OK, should we launch/disband or not?" and you
> need to give an answer.

Yes, and the answer is as always: 4.12... (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin Krischik]

Am 06.06.2010, 23:22 Uhr, schrieb Georg Bauhaus  
<rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>:

> On 6/6/10 3:10 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> It seems worthwhile mentioning that DbC's primary purpose
> is not to augment programs with run-time checks; rather, DbC asks
> for programmers who write as if there was no assertion monitoring
> but who explain their code with pre/post/inv.  The operator may
> turn on run-time monitoring so that he/she is notified if something goes
> wrong (disproving the programmers' assumptions; the monitor stops
> the program or runs the remains in a debugger).

Sounds a lot like Java assertions. We makes me think:

If the captain thinks that there might be icebergs on route he orders to  
take on live boats. If not he leaves them at shore to save petrol and gain  
extra speed. The later is default if the captain forgets to make a  
decision.

Or worse:

If the captain does not believe the engineer that the ship is unsinkable  
he orders to take on of live boats.  If not …

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 07.06.10 09:56, Martin Krischik wrote:
> Am 06.06.2010, 23:22 Uhr, schrieb Georg Bauhaus
> <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>:
> 
>> On 6/6/10 3:10 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> It seems worthwhile mentioning that DbC's primary purpose
>> is not to augment programs with run-time checks; rather, DbC asks
>> for programmers who write as if there was no assertion monitoring
>> but who explain their code with pre/post/inv.  The operator may
>> turn on run-time monitoring so that he/she is notified if something goes
>> wrong (disproving the programmers' assumptions; the monitor stops
>> the program or runs the remains in a debugger).
> 
> Sounds a lot like Java assertions. We makes me think:
> 
> If the captain thinks that there might be icebergs on route he orders to
> take on live boats. If not he leaves them at shore to save petrol and
> gain extra speed. The later is default if the captain forgets to make a
> decision.

A captain requesting lifeboats does not prepare for exception
handling. You use lifeboats when the ship sinks, the ship's
components have failed, possibly after an impact of unexpected
I/O (an iceberg popping up, say).
By analogy, sinking is when the program stops.

DbC, however, has to do with designing components of the ship.
You can have rescue clauses (exception handlers)
in DbC.  But the idea is that a correct program is better.
Yet, praising one-self to be preparing for exceptional
situations is only as safe normal flow of control within
and from exception handlers---if they are at all prepared
to handle a situation.

Exceptional situations is "unprogrammed" exceptional state,
since this is what "exceptional" is about, if anything.
And if a hammer  turns out to be made of wood,
some contract is broken. If no one thought of such a preposterous
choice of material for a hammer, it will be reasonable
to expect there is no handler for this outcome.
Hence no rescue clause.  Next ship will have a type, though,
that allows distinguishing different kinds of hammer.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:13:18 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> DbC, however, has to do with designing components of the ship.
> You can have rescue clauses (exception handlers)
> in DbC.

To whom should Titanic have sent the exception? To the humpback whales?

> Exceptional situations is "unprogrammed" exceptional state,
> since this is what "exceptional" is about, if anything.

Any state is programmed. This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
happens, the program is in no state.

> And if a hammer  turns out to be made of wood,
> some contract is broken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallet

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:13:18 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> DbC, however, has to do with designing components of the ship.
> You can have rescue clauses (exception handlers)
> in DbC.
Yes, DnC is rather part of design than part of the application.

This may not be perfect (words to Dmitry), while this still help to focus  
on design.

BTW, nobody claimed DbC as proposed for Ada 2012 was sufficient to prove a  
program.

Ada also has an expected role in pedagogy, and DbC can help it to play  
this role. I believe this way of DbC is most likely to attract people than  
a more strict one (two teachers here said even students tend to avoid  
designing... so try to figure what the crowd's behavior can be) like SPARK  
(which is neither perfect for some practical reasons although it perfectly  
sounds). The important fact is that it is a step toward without any step  
backward. I neither believe the proposed DbC will ever bloat Ada or give  
it any weakness holes. I agree with you (still talking to Dmitry), when  
you complain, as an example, generics comes with numerous troubles ;  
however, if a comparison was to be made, we will probably see Ada's DbC  
will comes with far less troubles (in the program proof area) than  
generics which are already there from long. There is no reason to focus on  
Ada 2012 DbC as a potential source of trouble.

May be an opportunity to ask (a second time) for a question I have in  
mind: will SPARK (in the future) get benefit from Ada's DbC annotations ?

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:10:48 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> To put a hand grenade in your pocket, is safer than in the mouth...
This picture has no foundation to me (an arbitrary picture which does not  
represent any relevant measurements of what the reality is)

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:58:37 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:10:48 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> To put a hand grenade in your pocket, is safer than in the mouth...
> This picture has no foundation to me (an arbitrary picture which does not  
> represent any relevant measurements of what the reality is)

It illustrates meaningless of comparisons like "safer" taken out of
context. Maybe better one would be:

NASA trained astronauts to climb trees, because being on a tree you would
be closer to the Moon.

Identifiers as goto labels in Ada are safer than numeric labels in FORTRAN.
Did that make gotos better? Yes, it did. Does that justify use of gotos? By
no means.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:56:54 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:13:18 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
> <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a �crit:
>> DbC, however, has to do with designing components of the ship.
>> You can have rescue clauses (exception handlers)
>> in DbC.
> Yes, DnC is rather part of design than part of the application.
> 
> This may not be perfect (words to Dmitry), while this still help to focus  
> on design.

I fail to see how misleading stuff may focus on design. Executable
contracts is just rubbish. They will rather distract from design in favor
debugging. Ada was designed as a language of little or no debugging.
Unfortunately it rapidly loses the ground.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 07.06.10 15:27, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:56:54 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:
> 
>> Le Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:13:18 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
>> <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a �crit:
>>> DbC, however, has to do with designing components of the ship.
>>> You can have rescue clauses (exception handlers)
>>> in DbC.
>> Yes, DnC is rather part of design than part of the application.
>>
>> This may not be perfect (words to Dmitry), while this still help to focus  
>> on design.
> 
> I fail to see how misleading stuff may focus on design. Executable
> contracts is just rubbish.

Not all DbC contracts need to be executable.
Their being executalbe is considered accidental,
not essential; Ada's aspect notation would not
currently support this, though, IIUC.

> They will rather distract from design in favor
> debugging.

We'll see.  I still wonder why one would not want to
specify more than the subtype constraints can achieve
(without contorted(?) emulation of another type system).

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 07.06.10 14:22, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:13:18 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> DbC, however, has to do with designing components of the ship.
>> You can have rescue clauses (exception handlers)
>> in DbC.
> 
> To whom should Titanic have sent the exception? To the humpback whales?

As I said, this is not an exception raised in some
component part, the ship is damaged and is going to
sind. The frame of reference for "exceptional" is
a different one.

>> Exceptional situations is "unprogrammed" exceptional state,
>> since this is what "exceptional" is about, if anything.
> 
> Any state is programmed.

In an trivial sense, yes, every exceptional state
is a state.... "Boring!", as some say.

> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
> happens, the program is in no state.

Erh, are you sure?

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:12:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
>> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
>> happens, the program is in no state.
>
> Erh, are you sure?
May be when the CPU enters a double-fault state ? (half-joking)


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:27:45 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> They will rather distract from design in favor
> debugging.
As an old Eiffel “advocator”, I can say no, as long as you read contract  
clauses before using any component holding such a contract (just like you  
have to know the signature of a subprogram before being able to use it).  
And whenever an error occurred, which is caught (likely early) by a clause  
violation, you then have an interpretation of the error. There is nothing  
like an interpretation, when in a debugger, you see this variable X has  
this value Y which turns into the Z behavior. Even if a clause violation  
pass control to a debugger (I had created my own in that purpose with  
SmallEiffel), you still have a debugger with an interpretation of an  
erroneous state.

> Ada was designed as a language of little or no debugging.
> Unfortunately it rapidly loses the ground.
Agree. But there is no magic keyword, no magic syntactic construct, this  
target needs paradigm, process and construction techniques. And this is  
the purpose of DbC. Ada needs something to target “little or no  
debugging”, it cannot do it by-itself. I agree there are other ways, more  
strict and formal ways to achieve the same, ... however, this would  
unlikely meet a large community agreement (for the reasons given before).


-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:09:37 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> I still wonder why one would not want to
> specify more than the subtype constraints can achieve
Indeed, I oftenly had this in mind (what a type system will never be able  
to do).

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:12:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 07.06.10 14:22, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
>> happens, the program is in no state.
> 
> Erh, are you sure?

Yes I am. Any program state is defined, it has some sematic interpretation
in the domain. Bug is when you have lost this synchronization. Meaningless
state is no state.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 07.06.10 16:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:12:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 07.06.10 14:22, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
>>> happens, the program is in no state.
>>
>> Erh, are you sure?
> 
> Yes I am. Any program state is defined, it has some sematic interpretation
> in the domain. Bug is when you have lost this synchronization. Meaningless
> state is no state.

Then what constitutes a bug?

  procedure add_to_account(Number: in out  Account_ID; sum: Money) is
     client_account: Account := Find_Account(Number);
  begin
    -- FIXME: not ready, using dummy account
    client_account := Make_new_Account;
  end add_to_account;

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:09:37 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 07.06.10 15:27, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> They will rather distract from design in favor
>> debugging.
> 
> We'll see.  I still wonder why one would not want to
> specify more than the subtype constraints can achieve
> (without contorted(?) emulation of another type system).

To specify? You have used an improper word. The correct on is *to program*.
I have nothing against programming. Just don't sell me this as
specifications. They are not. And I certainly don't want *parts* of the
program being turned off by compiler switches.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:00:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 07.06.10 16:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:12:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> 
>>> On 07.06.10 14:22, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> 
>>>> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
>>>> happens, the program is in no state.
>>>
>>> Erh, are you sure?
>> 
>> Yes I am. Any program state is defined, it has some sematic interpretation
>> in the domain. Bug is when you have lost this synchronization. Meaningless
>> state is no state.
> 
> Then what constitutes a bug?
> 
>   procedure add_to_account(Number: in out  Account_ID; sum: Money) is
>      client_account: Account := Find_Account(Number);
>   begin
>     -- FIXME: not ready, using dummy account
>     client_account := Make_new_Account;
>   end add_to_account;

Where is a problem?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin Krischik]

Am 07.06.2010, 17:09 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:00:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> On 07.06.10 16:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:12:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07.06.10 14:22, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
>>>>> happens, the program is in no state.
>>>>
>>>> Erh, are you sure?
>>>
>>> Yes I am. Any program state is defined, it has some sematic  
>>> interpretation
>>> in the domain. Bug is when you have lost this synchronization.  
>>> Meaningless
>>> state is no state.
>>
>> Then what constitutes a bug?
>>
>>   procedure add_to_account(Number: in out  Account_ID; sum: Money) is
>>      client_account: Account := Find_Account(Number);
>>   begin
>>     -- FIXME: not ready, using dummy account
>>     client_account := Make_new_Account;
>>   end add_to_account;
>
> Where is a problem?

He should not have called Make_new_Account and the add promised by the  
name of the function never happens.

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin Krischik]

Am 07.06.2010, 17:05 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>:

> And I certainly don't want *parts* of the
> program being turned off by compiler switches.

In Java it is even worse: Parts of your program are switched on by runtime  
switches. See the -enableassertions.

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 07.06.10 17:09, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:00:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 07.06.10 16:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:12:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07.06.10 14:22, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
>>>>> happens, the program is in no state.
>>>>
>>>> Erh, are you sure?
>>>
>>> Yes I am. Any program state is defined, it has some sematic interpretation
>>> in the domain. Bug is when you have lost this synchronization. Meaningless
>>> state is no state.
>>
>> Then what constitutes a bug?
>>
>>   procedure add_to_account(Number: in out  Account_ID; sum: Money) is
>>      client_account: Account := Find_Account(Number);
>>   begin
>>     -- FIXME: not ready, using dummy account
>>     client_account := Make_new_Account;
>>   end add_to_account;
> 
> Where is a problem?

The above program, if it enters production, has
a bug, IMHO:

  if Passed_In > 0.0 then
    Lock.Seize;
    was := amount_in_account(123);
    add_to_account(123, sum => Passed_In);
    is := amount_in_account(123);
    Lock.Release;

    -- assume add_to_account is correct
    send(other_bank, is - was);

Program state is meaningful, if buggy.

Or are you defining a bug to be a state of the program
to which you are unable to assign meaning?

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 07.06.10 17:34, Martin Krischik wrote:
> Am 07.06.2010, 17:05 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>:
> 
>> And I certainly don't want *parts* of the
>> program being turned off by compiler switches.
> 
> In Java it is even worse: Parts of your program are switched on by
> runtime switches. See the -enableassertions.

-enableassertions, pragma Assertion_Policy, translation
options like choice of exception handling mechanism,
optimization, -gnato, they all effect a different program.
They do so following language rules.  What's so special
about having an option for monitoring the program
via assertions?

Assertions work on boolean expressions.
A can't think of a commandment obliging the programmer to
force side effects into his/her boolean expressions.
(And then selling the program without pointing out to
the operators that assertion monitoring may lead to
this and that effect.)  Indeed, if you follow the rules of
DbC, then assertion monitoring is *never* to touch
the logic of your components.

"Tampers with elements/cursors" in Ada.Containers
isn't that different I think.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 07.06.10 18:25, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> "Tampers with elements/cursors" in Ada.Containers
> isn't that different I think.

Meaning that if you want high speed children of Ada.Containers,
you perform these checks in predicates inside Assert pragmas
and turn them off once you have reason to trust your program.

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:50:25 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 07.06.10 17:09, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:00:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> 
>>> On 07.06.10 16:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:12:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07.06.10 14:22, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This includes the exceptional ones. When bug
>>>>>> happens, the program is in no state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Erh, are you sure?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I am. Any program state is defined, it has some sematic interpretation
>>>> in the domain. Bug is when you have lost this synchronization. Meaningless
>>>> state is no state.
>>>
>>> Then what constitutes a bug?
>>>
>>>   procedure add_to_account(Number: in out  Account_ID; sum: Money) is
>>>      client_account: Account := Find_Account(Number);
>>>   begin
>>>     -- FIXME: not ready, using dummy account
>>>     client_account := Make_new_Account;
>>>   end add_to_account;
>> 
>> Where is a problem?
> 
> The above program, if it enters production, has
> a bug, IMHO:

Yes, but it does not mean that the code has a bug. Stubs, mocks, emulators
are *valid* programs. They have the contracts of their own, though related
to the production contract.

It is not a language issue, but of the unit test tool to prevent a stub to
be linked in the production code.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:25:35 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 07.06.10 17:34, Martin Krischik wrote:
>> Am 07.06.2010, 17:05 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov
>> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>:
>> 
>>> And I certainly don't want *parts* of the
>>> program being turned off by compiler switches.
>> 
>> In Java it is even worse: Parts of your program are switched on by
>> runtime switches. See the -enableassertions.
> 
> -enableassertions, pragma Assertion_Policy, translation
> options like choice of exception handling mechanism,
> optimization, -gnato, they all effect a different program.
> They do so following language rules.

Which are designed to honor the principle "Don't touch the program
semantics!"

> What's so special
> about having an option for monitoring the program
> via assertions?

That assertions do not obey the above principle => if that is the language
rule, then that rule is a language design bug.

Assertions are against good design, because Assertion_Error is a welcome
excuse for a lazy programmer not to consider what shall be the consequences
of the program entering an undesired state. He does not even to care to
*name* this problem appropriately. It is just Assertion_Error. Even

   Oops : Exception;

were better!

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Martin Krischik]

Am 07.06.2010, 18:25 Uhr, schrieb Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>:

> What's so special
> about having an option for monitoring the program
> via assertions?

I want an option to define the default via MANIFEST.MF. But then I guess  
the designers did not want that to prevent misuse.

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 6/5/2010 11:50 AM, Robert A Duff wrote:
> "Nasser M. Abbasi"<nma@12000.org>  writes:

>
>> I just meant it seems "easier" to use complex numbers in FORTRAN than
>> Ada, just because one does not to do all this instantiating every
>> where.
>

> You don't have to instantiate everywhere.  If you're willing to stick
> to the predefined floating point types (Float, Long_Float, etc),
> then you can use Ada.Numerics.Elementary_Functions,
> Ada.Numerics.Long_Elementary_Functions, etc.
>

I am looking at it now, and you are right, there is 
Ada.Numerics.Complex_Elementary_Functions and 
Ada.Numerics.Complex_Types predefined to float. So no need to instantiate.

But why no predefined package for complex IO also?

Ada.Text_IO.Complex_IO is generic package, and I have to instantiate it 
for float to do complex IO? May be I overlooked something.

I am using GNAT 4.3.4

thanks
--Nasser

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[AdaMagica]

On 9 Jun., 08:31, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> But why no predefined package for complex IO also?
>
> Ada.Text_IO.Complex_IO is generic package, and I have to instantiate it
> for float to do complex IO? May be I overlooked something.

There is Complex_Text_IO, see RM A(2/3) and RM G.1.3(9.1/2)

Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

[Robert A Duff]

"Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> writes:

> But why no predefined package for complex IO also?

These are also defined by the language, and implemented
in GNAT:

Ada.Complex_Text_IO (a-coteio.ads)
Ada.Long_Complex_Text_IO (a-lcteio.ads)
Ada.Long_Long_Complex_Text_IO (a-llctio.ads)
Ada.Short_Complex_Text_IO (a-scteio.ads)

> Ada.Text_IO.Complex_IO is generic package, and I have to instantiate it
> for float to do complex IO? May be I overlooked something.

They're easy to overlook in the RM, because the entire
package spec is not shown -- just a short paragraph
describing what they look like.  See G.1.3(9.1/2).

As far as I know, all of the generic numerics stuff
has pre-instantiated versions for Float, Long_Float, etc.

- Bob