Michael Pickett said:
> but sadly, these people are coders who have used Ada. They do not discuss Ada in any way that indicates that they really believe what Ada can do.
How true! I once worked in a team developing an Ada compilation system to be used on a major defence-related project, where Ada was mandated but the developers were not "real Ada people". We (the team) were frequently staggered by the questions that we received from these people as to how to do things; e.g. how to get direct write access to the data declared in a package body (!), or how to overwrite the values of global string constants, etc. It was clear that they considered Ada's restrictions to be "brick walls" preventing them from doing what they wanted to, rather than being powerful architectural devices to prevent them from making errors. They obviously had no understanding of the spirit of the language, or the s/w engineering concepts which it embodies: instead, they were trying to use the same coding style they had used in the past, as though Ada really were "just another language" - and complaining that the language would not let them use the dirty tricks they were accustomed to.
> Is it possible that there seem to be so few opportunities for Ada programmers because there are really too few good Ada programmers on the market to interest potential employers in adopting Ada?
Is the problem really that there are too few programmers on the market who are software engineers (regardless of whether or not they claim to be such, or what language they use) rather than hackers - and that this shows up more clearly when using Ada rather than C or C++ ? It seems to me, from what I have seen, that C++ very much appeals to the mindset of quick & dirty programming, clever tricks and complexity simply for its own sake which came from the C community. I find it perfectly possible to produce good code in C - because I write it as though I were writing Ada!