pse_papay@GTEWD.ARPA (02/21/89)
In volume 89, issue 54 Bruce Anderson asked: > > ... does everyone think that the case-insensitivity of Ada is a positive > feature and if so why? > The reason for Ada's case insensitivity is one of portability. Ada was designed to be the common higher order programming language for the DoD. Since some of the computers used by the DoD may not support upper and lower case characters, Ada cannot be a case sensitive language. Is this a positive feature of the language? When one takes into account the issue of portability, I think it is a very positive feature. As for the rest of the computer science community, I can only assume that a large number of people feel the same way, as this feature was required by the "Steelman" document. One last comment: Its too bad that many people feel "forced" to use Ada, as Mr. Anderson's company is. Why is it that when a group of C, or FORTRAN, or Pascal programmers get together (at a conference, workshop, et al), they're there because they _want_ to, while when a group of Ada programmers get together, many are there because they _have_ to? David F. Papay papayd@gtewd.arpa GTE Government Systems Corp. 100 Ferguson Dr. (415)-694-1522 PO Box 7188 M/S 5G09 Mountain View, CA 94039
banderso@sagpd1.UUCP (Bruce Anderson) (02/21/89)
First off I appreciate the responses I have gotten on the case sensitivity issue. I still don't agree with them but I can see how others might. On another subject, in one of the replies, David Papay comments: >One last comment: Its too bad that many people feel "forced" to use Ada, >as Mr. Anderson's company is. Why is it that when a group of C, or FORTRAN, >or Pascal programmers get together (at a conference, workshop, et al), they're >there because they _want_ to, while when a group of Ada programmers get >together, many are there because they _have_ to? I think that the primary reason people feel "forced" to use Ada is that they _ARE_ forced to use Ada. I may be wrong, but I don't think that most companies who go out and design a microwave oven which happens to have a processor in it are using C or Fortran or Pascal because the customer won't buy it if they don't. They use a particular language because it suits their environment best and _they_ get to decide what fits best. Converting to a new language (any new language) is an expensive task and Ada is more expensive than most. Not only do you have an extensive retraining process but a typical Ada cross compiler costs 10 to 15 times as much as a C cross compiler and the Ada compiler is very complex and therefore requires more computer power for the same development project. Because of this, many people do not see an economic reason (and face it that's the real basis for decisions in a corporate environment) to switch to Ada, if given a choice, particularly since the payback is very difficult to quantify. Also many people (and as a subclass programmers) get comfortable with what they know and _uncomfortable_ when they need to learn something new, especially when they need to learn it not because they are interested in it but because they _have_ to use it. Personally, I feel that it is probably a good idea to switch to Ada or one of the other object oriented languages but I am enough of a rebel that when someone says "You've gotta do it", I tend to dig in my heels a little. My impression of the people who usually read (or at least post to) this group is that they are strong proponents of Ada (as they should be). What I've tried to do here is describe what many people on the outside are feeling. Bruce Anderson - Scientific Atlanta, Government Products Div ...!sagpd1!banderso
sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) (02/23/89)
In article <8902201944.AA05264@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> pse_papay@GTEWD.ARPA writes: > One last comment: Its too bad that many people feel "forced" to use > Ada, as Mr. Anderson's company is. Why is it that when a group of > C, or FORTRAN, or Pascal programmers get together (at a conference, > workshop, et al), they're there because they _want_ to, while when a > group of Ada programmers get together, many are there because they > _have_ to? Do you believe that *your* company would routinely use Ada by choice, if the DoD didn't require/force government contractors to use Ada? Steven Litvintchouk MITRE Corporation Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 Fone: (617)271-7753 ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa UUCP: ...{att,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl "Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.
oconnor@nuke.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) (02/27/89)
An article by sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) says: ] Do you believe that *your* company would routinely use Ada by choice, if ] the DoD didn't require/force government contractors to use Ada? Yes. Several non-aerospace portions of GE already do. -- Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa "...the bastard got away. God always fights on the side of the bad man"