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  November 1998

TEAM-ADA November 1998

Subject:

Re: Ada market viability

From:

"Squire, James A" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Squire, James A

Date:

Sun, 29 Nov 1998 15:11:14 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

Stanley Allen [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:

> First question: do we really believe that programmers will be attracted to
Ada on the basis
> of reliability?  I know that some will, but what evidence is there to
persuade us that these
> are more than a small minority of programmers?  It appears to me that, in
America
> especially, programming is an ego-enhancing activity, the vast majority of
practitioners
> being males interested in the creative and fun aspects of programming,
with a focus on
> new or exotic technology features.  The satisfactions that the average
programmer seems
> to find in developing software are not very closely related to the goals
we often list as
> "software engineering principles": reliability, maintenance, etc.

I'm guessing you are right about most ...  parenthetically, is your use of
the word "programmer" intentional here, over "software engineer"?  Are there
really two different classes of jobs here?  I know that perception was very
much the case 19 years ago when I was a College Senior.  My fellow CS grads
weren't interested in stooping to accepting a job with the title
"Programmer".  I basically picked up that perception and assumed there was
some accuracy to it.

So... might it be accurate to say that "programmers" are attracted to
languages as you describe, while "software engineers" are attracted for
other reasons?  Maybe that's a trivial point, I don't know.  Either way,
those who are looking for a language that's fun to program in are probably
in the majority.

> Furthermore, it seems to me that our attempts to sell Ada on the basis on
reliability,
> safety, "critical" systems certification, etc. have a touch of bad faith
in them.  By this I
> mean that I distrust you people whenever you claim that "reliability" or
"safety" are the
> main reasons that you like to program in Ada.  It's a bit like hearing
people say they
> subscribe to Playboy for its fine journalism.  You just want to say, "Come
on, get real!"
> My thesis is: programmers (like you) program for pleasure first; other
considerations come
> second.  What aspect of Ada first appealed to you, struck your fancy,
aroused your
> interest?  For me it was tasking.  For you perhaps it was private types,
generics, or other
> various features that lend themselves to the creative impulse in
programming.  I doubt it
> was range checks.

Speaking as a "software engineer" ;-)

When Ada came in to my life, I was at what a coworker of mine likes to call
stage one on the path to Ada Nirvana:  "It's just another programming
language".  Well, sort of.  What I mean is that I did not have the hubris to
go around saying, "I will only program in language <such and such>".  I had
just joined a new project with some significant degree of company
visibility, and frankly it was an exciting position that made me say,
"program in xyz?  Sure, why not!"  Actually the project was directly tied to
the new DoD policy requiring Ada in all new projects.  The project I was
joining was a core technology group charged with developing a software
engineering environment for Ada, and all software we wrote had to be in Ada.

I learned Ada because it was required for the job, not because I was
attracted to it.  I was attracted to the idea of improving the quality of
software development in the company, as well as the idea of belonging to a
group that other projects depend on (we all like to feel needed ;-) ).

As for what feature of Ada was the most sexy to me, well, let's see.  I
liked the syntax better than both Pascal and C, but we won't go there ;-)  I
really don't know.  If anything, the fact that implicit operators were not
automatically directly visible was actually a pain in the butt.  Ada was the
first language I had run into that had that "feature".  I quickly developed
a hatred for the "use" clause, and to use the "goto" was literally
unthinkable.  I can't really say there was anything sexy about Ada.  I
mostly found myself poo-pooing the complaints of others.  My favorite has
always been "I have to type too many characters" in defense of "use"
clauses.  Maybe as a touch typist, I'm a bit prejudiced, but this complaint
has always struck me as the epitome of laziness.

To me, Ada is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.  Furthermore,
the most disturbing implication to me over the last couple of years with the
termination of the Ada Policy is that somehow all the work that was done to
design the best language is worth doodly-squat.  Call me a trusting soul,
but when I heard that Ada was a language designed over a number of years
with the interests of the DoD in mind, I just assumed that Ada had SOMETHING
going for it.  Who am I to question that?  So I didn't.  And nowhere in my
11+ years with Ada has the language failed to live up to that trust.  It
seems like there's this mentality out here in Aerospace and Defense Land
that automatically dismisses Ada and all the work that was put into it.  I
think I get it; I just don't buy it.

> Second question: what's wrong with selling Ada as the real-time language
of choice
> instead of the safety-critical language of choice?  Jeff Burns says:

>> Ada may be better at real time, but C is the major player
>> there and well established.  It's an uphill battle to
>> establish Ada as better than C for real time.

> Unlike Tucker, I tend to believe that focusing on "critical" systems has
the wrong
> psychological results.  The underlying message of such an approach is "Ada
is good for
> systems that absolutely must work -- so don't consider it for less
'significant' tasks."

Doesn't selling Ada as the "real-time" language of choice also have the same
type of underlying message?  Indeed, no matter what focus you pick, by your
argument, aren't you limiting Ada's outreach?
---
James Squire    Send my Spam to mailto:[log in to unmask]
MDA^H^H^HBoeing St. Louis                 http://www.boeing.com
Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Were you like this when you were married?"
'Huh? Yeah.'
"The woman was a saint."
        -- Ivanova and Sheridan, "A Race Through Dark Places"

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