bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) (12/17/88)
From Ted Holden, HTE: .......................................................... From: Ron Guilmette: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale >>C++ actually IS the language Ada was supposed to be and never will be, the >>main language which DOD (and a lot of other organizations) need. >I used to be a big Ada fan. Now I'm a big C++ fan. Nonetheless, I >have to point out the error in the above statement. >C++ *is not* the language Ada was supposed to be. Specifically, Ada is >*standardized* while C++ is not (yet). That can be good and bad. >Actually, this is probably the main reason that I now prefer C++ to Ada. >Everything about Ada (in particular, the warts) was set in concrete long ago. >In the case of C++, the language is still evolving and there is still time >to prevent it from becomming another hoplessly ugly beast. I meant simply that C++ appears capable of providing users the object-oriented paradigm, generating fast and efficient code for every kind of computer, imbedded system to mainframe, handling every kind of application, tank gun to DBMS to video-game or whatever, and efficiently use ordinary, cheap PCs and UNIX systems as development platforms. This or something entirely like this was the stated goal of Ada from the beginning. That Ada itself represents little more than a failed attempt in this direction is becoming more and more evident. Our industry turns completely over every three or four years or so; most of what you see around you now will be gone in four years. The fact that one or two almost acceptable Ada compilers are just now becoming visible after ten years of effort means, to me at least, that Ada has only missed it by seven years. In a couple of years, virtually all normal computers will be running UNIX. Micro managers will be seeing 386-based desktop machines with applications for which DOS no longer will suffice, and virtually all mid-sized machines, database servers etc., which run UNIX. The choice for an OS for the desktop machines will be simple: UNIX, and ordinary UUCP connections between the desktops and the mid-sized machines, or OS/2 and forever endure the pain of dealing with the two dissimilar worlds. This lack of portability/connectivity will kill OS/2. And, the fact that Ada cannot live happily with UNIX, should alone suffice to kill Ada. The tale concerning Ada/UNIX comes back the same way and sounds the same no matter which way you turn your ear. There was the article in the Aug. 1 issue of Government Computer News, there are the comments from the Nov. RICIS symposium ("Ada on UNIX doesn't work"), and, to me at least, aside from and in addition to my own experiences with UNIX/Ada, it sounds about the same no matter who I talk to. The existence of specialized machines for Ada development (Rational), the articles you read calling for new generations of imbedded chips designed specifically for Ada, the nature of Ada systems which you see for the PC (LIM board, 2 meg DRAM, $3500 price tag) all speak of the same basic failure; the "do everything" language simply seems all too limited in what it can do and what it can do it on, and seems to take entirely too much of a Herculean effort to do anything. The state of other-than-UNIX Ada implementations may be judged from recent articles in Defense Computing, Sept.-Oct. 88 and Journal of Electronic Defense, which read like indictments. Bjarne Stroustrup was quoted in an issue of Byte this summer to the effect that Ada was the language of the future, that there was no other language which the government was willing to throw billions of dollars at. This is a dimmer view than I feel the circumstances justify. I believe Mr. Stroustrup et. al. have something the government needs, and might possibly be sold on. Ted Holden HTE
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (12/19/88)
Actually, algol-68 is the language that ADA was supposed to be....;-)