Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
Date: 19 Nov 1994 18:43:14 -0000
Message-ID: <3alh02$rgo_at_holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
In article <Cz9H4I.5HK_at_ois.com>,
beckwb_at_ois.com (R. William Beckwith) writes:
>Jamie Jamison (niteowl_at_u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: I am taking an introductory computer science class at the UW and
>: we are learning the Ada language. So far it's pretty nice. The language
>: seems to lend itself to easy readability, the fact that the language is
>: case insensitive is also a nice factor and the language is incredibly
>: powerful. We're in the second quarter of this class and we're already
>: writing ADT's and generic functions. Ada seems to be pretty neat, strong
>: typing, bounds checking and generic functions are all nice language
>: features, and from what I've seen Ada is a lot better than C.
>
>Yes, Ada is a wonderful language.
>
>: So why is
>: it that the real world, such as it is, programs in C. Sure, C compilers
>: are cheaper, but it seems to me that the labor that you put into writing
>: and maintaining the programs is the real cost, and I know that, at least
>: for me, writing something in C takes a lot longer than writing something
>: in Ada. So why hasn't Ada caught on? Why aren't people developing
>: applications for it?
[deletions]
>IMHO, the structural factors include (in order):
>
> 1. operating systems and windowing software were written in C
>
> MS-Windows and X/Xt/Motif are written in C. Thus, it was
> easier to write software in C the environment. In addition,
> Ada 83's built in multi-threading wreaked havoc on the
> non-reentrant O/S and windowing software.
I have not personally programmed Ada, although I know a little about it.
I would however strongly disagree that it is easier to write MS-Windows
software (I don't know about X as I haven't started programming it yet, only
using it so far) with C. I personally use Turbo Pascal (a language which
I believe has many features in common with Ada) to write Windows programs,
and find it much easier than using C for the following reasons:
over C, by exchanging the flexibility of C's pointer arithmetic for
ease of use.
> The O/S's and windowing systems are finally catching up
> to Ada's multi-threading capabilities. In addition,
> Ada 9X's improved non-Ada interfacing features and the
> advent of Fresco for Ada 9X Win NT and X11R6 windowing
> software and CORBA for Ada 9X should remove these problems.
>
> 2. high price of Ada compilers compared to C/C++/BASIC products
>
> I agree with your assessment of the real cost of software,
> but most companies must realize their return on investment
> in the first year or two to get project funding. Thus,
> they won't pay four times the price of a C++ compiler for
> an Ada compiler.
>
> Fortunately, Ada compiler vendors are pricing their new
> Ada 9X products competitively with C++ products. In
> addition, the free GNAT compiler allows one to learn the
> language without any up front cost.
>
> 3. lack of flexibility in the first version of Ada (Ada 83)
>
> The lack of program pointers, polymorphism, and inheritance
> precluded the introduction of extensible tools in Ada 83.
> Ada 83 was designed for ultimate reliability and
> maintainability only.
>
> Ada 9X adds incredible flexibility. Thus, Ada 9X addresses
> these requirements and much, much more.
>
>None of these reasons exist anymore. Let's see how large
>corporations react in the next couple of years.
May I add that I am eagerly anticipating the coming of Ada into my life. It must be better than the Pascal they're making us poor first years use, I thought this language was supposed to be easy to learn. WITHOUT ANY STRING OPERATIONS BUILT IN? Why?
-- /* Julian R Hall csusb_at_csv.warwick.ac.uk Flames should be redirected to /dev/null - I don't know what I'm saying myself so don't expect it to make sense all the time! */Received on Sat Nov 19 1994 - 19:43:14 CET