Re: Embedded Keynote Speaker Mentions Ada

From: Cesar Rabak (crabak_at_acm.org)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:23:34 -0300

stephane richard escreveu:
> "Cesar Rabak" <crabak@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:414B6E62.9070402@acm.org...
>
>> Larry Kilgallen escreveu:
>>
>> If management allow them to use it in the actual project!
>>
>> -- Cesar Rabak
>>
>
>
> Indeed, but what I don't understand is:
>
> 1. How and why is it so hard to make them understand that C or C++
> are not necessarily the solution to their problem simply because of
> it's popularity.

I have some field experience that can enlight this. From a very high
level (say management) perspective, the technology is less present and
all languages seem to be similar. Technicalities are just 'details' and
big projects have much more than just coding as critical and risky phases.

> Sure, back then, anyone that would have given any language away would
> have made it popular (BASIC comes to mind ;-).
>

Although I see you intended as joke, the truth is that given a
technology backed up by good marketing and adequate (healthier) financed
companies will be considered first.

Also, as the software engineers will have to know much more than just a
programming language (Database, GUIs, Modelling, etc.), the available
knowledge by the average working force is considered the appropriate choice.

I insist I do not second these attitudes!

> 2. I think that if any manager or any other person capable of making
> a "which language" to use decision, if they took 5 minutes to do
> proper searches, would see the "real" benefits of using ada both as a
> programming language and as a "economical" solution for the lesser
> time to debug only.
>

True. But it is hard to make a business plan on these grounds because
the focus today is not in production of code but integration of already
built packages.

Even if a system were to be built from scratch, it is acknoledged coding
takes about 10% to 20% of all project resources.

> 3. The only thing stopping them, in my book is none of the above.
> The availability of Ada developers just isn't as big as the "popular"
> languages.

Yes. In fact I dare to say Ada technology is 'invisible' for a big part
of the IT industry.

>
> 4. It seems that people have the wrong conception of "development
> tools" as well. In essence, if it don't operate like microsoft's
> visual studio IDEs it ain't good. Big mistake to make that
> assumption.

I cannot agree more.

> Sure microsoft IDE's aren't all that bad. But in my
> opinion, they sure could be better both in features and integration
> with compilers/linkers etc. GPS 2.XX (think it's 00 but not sure)
> from Ada Core Technologies, anyone seen it in action? From what I've
> heard, Microsoft can't even begin to compete with what GPS offers to
> the "whole" development process.

I think here we have the real point. GPS may have some nice features but
still lacks as well too much things to be able to really make a
difference. . . in addition to its own technology (compiler, gnatmake,
project files) we would need a lot of effort to have it integrating with
UML modellers, documentation generation tools, etc. to make it really
stand in the radar of the developers that still do not use Ada.

>
> On a different note, I was happy to get an email yesterday from a
> student, new to Ada95 in West Washington University. It's good to
> see american universities teaching Ada :-).
>
Yes. It gives a warm feeling. 

--
Cesar Rabak

Relevant Pages