Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Symbolic tracebacks on Debian (Was: About static libraries and Debian policy)
Next: Gnat cross compiler
From: (see below) on 24 May 2010 08:05 On 24/05/2010 08:55, in article c7fcdde0-6644-4202-803a-42efff00c8a2(a)v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, "Martin" <martin.dowie(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: > On May 23, 7:32�pm, "(see below)" <yaldni...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399(a)edtnps82, "Duke >> >> Normandin" <dukeofp...(a)ml1.net> wrote: >>> On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duch�ne <yannick_duch...(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: >>>> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...(a)ml1.net> a >>>> �crit: >>>>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie >>>>> ...) �;) >>>> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what >>>> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close. >> >>> Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore >>> only good for ..... >> >> Not much at all. >> >> -- >> Bill Findlay >> <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk > > Hi Bill, > > Why do you say that?... One of my favourite static analysis tools is > written in ML...it's definitely useful! Note that I did not say "good for nothing". 8-) -- Bill Findlay <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk
From: Bryan on 24 May 2010 08:14 On May 21, 7:05 pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...(a)ml1.net> wrote: > On 2010-05-21, Warren <ve3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ludovic Brenta expounded innews:87d3wqbayp.fsf(a)ludovic-brenta.org: > > >> Duke Normandin writes: > >>> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cri...(a)ecn.org> wrote: > >>>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what > >>>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, > >>>>> graphics, etc? TIA.. > > > It's ok to be curious but this begs the question of why > > it is important for it to be "popular"? > > > Do you have to sell it's use at your company? > > > Are you considering the availability of tools and/or > > source code? > > > Or, are you interested in it for your own (or open sourced) > > projects? > > > Depending on the answers to some of these factors, > > popularity may not be important. > > Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time > learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a > museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but > guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and > support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada. > -- By all means I say learn Ada at least as a learning exercise. It's a great language that you can grow with over time. GNAT is a great tool set as well, it provides you everything you need in the beginning. And let us not forget that some very interesting projects are built with Ada commercially! My only word of caution is to make sure you have a "popular" industry language on your tool belt as well. Try as I have, I've never been able to find work with Ada. When I was in Asia-Pacific, Ada was unheard of. In North America I find Ada is more well known, but without ten years of Ada industry experience, most employers are simply not interested in talking to candidates. Despite all of its faults, C++ has kept me employed and working on interesting projects. :) Multiple interpretations on C++ can be derived from that last statement.
From: Duke Normandin on 24 May 2010 09:10 On 2010-05-24, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox(a)dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote: > >> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl(a)ml1.net> writes: >> >>> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not(a)spam.acm.org> wrote: >>>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote: >>>>> >>>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software >>>>> on the JSF aircraft project? >>>> >>>> Money. >>>> >>>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money >>>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of >>>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. >>>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art. >>> >>> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for >>> using the "right tool, for a particular task". Greed, greed, and more greed >>> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. >> >> It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the >> contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools >> and writing good software, that's what would happen. >> >> It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the >> client's job to set the terms of the contract. > > Nice theory, not working in practice. Imagine your baker trying making as > much money as possible and you setting terms on the bread's ingredients. > > It is the fault of the CS unable to deliver a sound background for software > engineering. Which is more shamanism than engineering. This in turn makes > it impossible to impose *reasonable* regulations on what software is and > how it is to be engineered. (Unreasonable regulations are plenty, of > course) Meaningful regulations exist, for example, for bakers, so when you > buy bread it is bread. When you buy software it can be anything. Because > nobody knows for sure how to do it "right". It is "our" word against the > word of c-java-dot-net-UML camp. The latter is far more vocal. So what do > you expect DoD to do? > I totally agree! and putting your points into a particular perspective - it doesn't make _any_ difference to the health and welfare of this planet if the next video game to hit the shelves is buggier than hell, because it was written in whatever, taking 3 times as long to write than what it could have taken using saner tools. However the (programming) flavor-of-the-decade is set, so "industry follows suit" like good little sheep. which leads me to academia!. Some egg-head(s) get it into their skulls that this or that language is cool, so some university starts to push flavor A, at the expense of other "industry-proven" technology. CS students are exposed to this "new" sweetheart technology to the exclusion of all others, including day-to-day brainwashing. A few years after graduation, these same CS students are managers somewhere, talking to clueless bean-counters about how great this or that technology is, and how it should be used to program various aircraft flight systems et al; and automobile acceleration-control software (or whatever); and the list goes on. So it's another "chicken-or-the-egg" thing. Meanwhile, Ada, M Technology (aka Mumps), COBOL, the latter 2 having billions of lines of code still extent, useful and necessary, are relegated to academia's antiquities museum. Bullshit! and the story keeps repeating itself over and over again. Anyway, this is totally OT, so I had better quit while I'm ahead. ;) -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***
From: Duke Normandin on 24 May 2010 09:20 On 2010-05-24, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake(a)stephe-leake.org> wrote: > Duke Normandin <dukeofperl(a)ml1.net> writes: > >> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not(a)spam.acm.org> wrote: >>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote: >>>> >>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software >>>> on the JSF aircraft project? >>> >>> Money. >>> >>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money >>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of >>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. >>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art. >>> >> >> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for >> using the "right tool, for a particular task". Greed, greed, and more greed >> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. > > It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the > contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools > and writing good software, that's what would happen. I don't buy it! If if can't make money using the correct tool for the job, thereby generating a safe, workable product, then don't bid the job! Then go out and get provably safe technology, and the best people that you can to use it. Work ethics and pride of workmanship, two values that have gone out the door for the most part, along time ago. Now its all about marketing, shmooze(sp), packaging and making as much money with the least effort. It's all a bunch of bullshit, and so are the products. > It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the > client's job to set the terms of the contract. Spoken like a true capitalist bean-counter - which is OK provided you are not screwing up the environment, and otherwise endangering people's lives and well-being in the process. -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***
From: Duke Normandin on 24 May 2010 09:22
On 2010-05-24, Bryan <brobinson.eng(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 7:05�pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...(a)ml1.net> wrote: >> On 2010-05-21, Warren <ve3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Ludovic Brenta expounded innews:87d3wqbayp.fsf(a)ludovic-brenta.org: >> >> >> Duke Normandin writes: >> >>> On 2010-05-20, Anonymous <cri...(a)ecn.org> wrote: >> >>>>> Just curious to know if Ada is still widely used, and in what >> >>>>> area(s) does it excel, e.g. data processing, number crunching, >> >>>>> graphics, etc? TIA.. >> >> > It's ok to be curious but this begs the question of why >> > it is important for it to be "popular"? >> >> > Do you have to sell it's use at your company? >> >> > Are you considering the availability of tools and/or >> > source code? >> >> > Or, are you interested in it for your own (or open sourced) >> > projects? >> >> > Depending on the answers to some of these factors, >> > popularity may not be important. >> >> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the time >> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but in a >> museum. Been there; done that! I'm also looking at learning Miranda - but >> guess what? Nice, simple functional language - but zero community and >> support. It _may_ get a second life - maybe. Meanwhile, I'm liking Ada. >> -- > > By all means I say learn Ada at least as a learning exercise. It's a > great language that you can grow with over time. GNAT is a great tool > set as well, it provides you everything you need in the beginning. > And let us not forget that some very interesting projects are built > with Ada commercially! > > My only word of caution is to make sure you have a "popular" industry > language on your tool belt as well. Try as I have, I've never been > able to find work with Ada. When I was in Asia-Pacific, Ada was > unheard of. In North America I find Ada is more well known, but > without ten years of Ada industry experience, most employers are > simply not interested in talking to candidates. Despite all of its > faults, C++ has kept me employed and working on interesting > projects. :) Multiple interpretations on C++ can be derived from > that last statement. I appreciate your candor and insight - thanks! -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** |