I read through the comments posted at the SlashDot site, and some of the
misinformation was so mind-bogglingly ludicrous that it warranted its own
Douglas Adams' metaphors. I was embarrassed for some of the contributors
that they not just believed, but would actually post, such foolishness.
Did you know that early Ada compilers could only recognize 48 characters?
That the language was so complex that it was years before a "certified"
compiler could be produced? (Well, that one might actually be true ;-)
I went in and responded to some of the most bone-headed assertions, and was
gratified to see that other knowledgable individuals were responding as
Desperately trying to NOT got into an rwar...
Marc A. Criley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Spannring [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 1:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "Why Not Ada"
> It is interesting reading through some of the comments. I think that
> Ada supporters would do good to study those answers. These are the
> reasons (right or wrong) people don't use Ada. If you want to
> increase Ada's use, you better find a way to address these issues.
> AdrianG wrote:
> My understanding is that Ada was designed, in part, to help keep
> the programmer from making some kinds of mistakes.
> And keeping the programmer from making mistakes is a bad thing?
> Hynman wrote:
> Ada was developed by the government, for military
> applications. Since it's scope was so specialized
> I've run into this before. It is interesting that many people think
> Ada is too specialized. I'm sure if people found out that one of the
> design goals of Ada was to eliminate the hundreds of specialized
> languages used at DOD people would complain that it was too
> Skweetis wrote:
> I don't use Ada because there aren't very many library bindings
> for it.
> Finally a criticism that isn't completely false.
> Microsoft/Sun/SGI/etc has legions of programmers and are constantly
> defining new APIs. Everyone else will always be one step behind.
> underclocked wrote:
> There are almost no professional opportunities for ADA
> This is always a hard one to get around without a substantial pocket
> book. Witness the mini-compact disk. Nobody uses them because nobody
> produces inexpensive mini disk players. Nobody produces inexpensive
> mini disk players because nobody uses them.
> In my own project, I'm having a hard time gaining management
> acceptance for Ada. I've worked through all of the other fallacies
> about Ada, but I'm having a hard time convincing management that good
> Ada programmers are just as easy to get as good C++ programmers.
> ader wrote:
> Anyway, the only programming projects I really enjoyed were the C
> Many people enjoy the arcane. It makes people proud of themselves
> when they track down a problem on their own. On the other hand, Ada
> compilers do nothing but criticize. The compiler is constantly
> saying, "Your code is wrong." People don't like criticism. They'd
> much rather have compiler that says, "Yes, your code is wonderful."
> Later on they even get the self-esteem boost when they track down
> the bugs. For most people finding and fixing bugs is a self-esteem
> boosting process. Ada limits that indulgence.
> Arrogant-Bastard wrote:
> specifically the design-by-committee approach
> It is a common perception that Ada was designed by committee and is
> therefore bad. This is just an example of how people make up their
> minds first and justify their opinions later. Facts don't matter to
> people, only opinion matters.
> Alex Otier writes:
> > The question was sent to Slashdot over the weekend, the URL is here
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/06/1435238
> > --
> > Alex Otier
> Life is short. | Craig Spannring
> Bike hard, ski fast. | [log in to unmask]
> When all you've got is Perl, everything feels like a smashed thumb