LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  December 1997

TEAM-ADA December 1997

Subject:

Re: Ichbiah comments on Java

From:

Stanley Allen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stanley Allen <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:01:06 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

Mike Kamrad wrote:
>
> When asked whether he uses Ada for developing his
> software, he responded no.  The availability of COTS
> software components compelled him to choose
> otherwise ...[slice] ... [Ichbiah] concluded, "We
> are in a world where this availability of outside
> components is becoming a tremendous factor, much more
> important than the language."
>

Unfortunately as with so many of Ichbiah's observations,
this is all too true.  Programmers in the Windows
environment program less "in" C++ or Java than they
program "in" a component collection.  We even say now
that an application is programmed "in" X.  The collection
of components provides an extended "language" which is
used to express a considerable bulk of the application.
Note however that pre-built components can never *be* the
application.

But Ichbiah's statement is also all too pessimistic.
It boils down to this: these "outside components" will
always be Ada-impenetrable, and thus we must implement
our application-unique logic using the ugly native
languages in which the component interfaces are expressed.

Obviously the lack of bindings was a big hold-up for
Ada83 use.  Not that good bindings would have made the
world's programmers stampede to Ada; there were simply
classes of applications that were not cost-effective to
consider because there were no bindings and it would have
taken too much effort to create them.  And now in the
Ada95 world we have binding generators, most of which
seem to be "experimental" or "toy" scripts which get
the job done "about 90% of the way", which is really
about as practical for the long-term as the handwriting
"recognition" of Apple's original Newton device.

This is not to denigrate that small set of bindings
which have been generated with these tools and have
proven useful.  But it always has taken quite a bit of
hand-work on the automatically-generated products to
make them usable and complete, much more so than is
practical if our goal is to have new Ada bindings
available to programmers within, say, a week of the
publication of a new API.  For example, the OpenMP
API is being introduced this year and C/C++ and
FORTRAN bindings are being created by some of the
committees (http://www.openmp.org).  Can we say that
the Ada programmer will have the means of using this
somewhat obscure API in his/her work within any
reasonable amount time?  The C or FORTRAN programmer
will.

I am no syntax/semantic/code-generator expert, and so
I can't make the following argument without qualification,
but here goes.

It seems to me that "binding generators" are in the
same state that "compiler generators" were in the early
80's.  At that time lex/yacc and a few other toolsets
we good enough for simple work, but were not good enough
to build commercial-quality compilers, especially for the
code-gen/optimization phases.  Then the work done by
Wulf and his CMU team on "production quality compiler-
compilers" enabled the development of high quality
compilers generated from abstract specifications, and
led to the Tartan family of products (someone correct
me if my history is off here -- I'm piecing this
together from memory of different sources).  Something
similar could be said about the intellectual history
of compiler "intermediate languages" and the work
being done now by DDC-I with ANDF, and also of the DEC
FX32 technology (translation of machine code from
one CPU architecture to another).

The point is this: to automatically generate high-
quality, programmer-friendly bindings for Ada
from C/C++ or Java "specs" may be within our grasp
if some research & development was pointed in that
direction.  Already the seeds are there in the current
c2ada and java2ada tools, but to reach the next level
will require more focus.  Perhaps ATIP funding could
be organized along these lines.

I envision a tool which accepts as input 1) the "specs"
for some interface in another language, and 2) "rules"
(or perhaps "options") which tell the binding generator
how to make certain choices.  The programmer-at-work
could use such a tool to generate project-specific
bindings on the spot for obscure APIs needed for his/her
application.  The ARA could use such a tool to quickly
develop "standard" thin bindings for important new APIs
which are introduced by the industry.  Note that I
haven't said that the tool must or even should be free.

(I had hoped last year that CORBA's IDL would become the
basis for an industry-wide move to specify interfaces in a
language-neutral way [and in fact, there have been some
interfaces specified in IDL, e.g. DMSO's HLA RTI] so that
"bindings" for different languages could be automatically
created as necessary.  This of course was a pipe dream:
the general software world is not nearly mature enough for
that concept.)

"I pray daily that more of my fellow-programmers will find
the means of freeing themselves from the curse of
compatibility" -- Edsger Dijkstra, Turing Award 1972

Stanley Allen
mailto:[log in to unmask]
mailto:[log in to unmask]

(P.S. Now that C++ is an ISO standard, I hope there is
now an effort to create a standard Ada95 "Interfaces.CPP"
package.)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager