Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16632 > unrolled thread

I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-23 16:09 -0700
    Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-23 16:43 -0700
    Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 16:50 -0700
      Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-23 18:58 -0700
        Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 15:12 -0700
    Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-23 14:02 -1000
      Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-24 02:51 +0200
        Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 04:23 -0700
      Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-23 19:20 -0700
      Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-24 05:04 -0500
        Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-24 08:04 -1000
          Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 13:11 -0700
            Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Pavel Klinkovsky <pavel.klinkovsky@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 13:21 -0700
            Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-25 20:00 +0200
              Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 11:30 -0700
                Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-26 09:00 +0000
                  Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-26 05:01 -0500
                  Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 08:46 -0700
              Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-25 23:05 -0500
                Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-28 15:35 +0000
                  Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-28 12:06 -0500
                    Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-28 21:38 +0100
                      Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 16:34 -0700
                    Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-29 10:56 +0000
                      Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-29 06:11 -0500
                        Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-29 13:51 -0400
                          Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-29 20:45 +0000
                            Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-30 04:20 -0500
                          Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-30 04:16 -0500
      Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 10:04 -0400
        Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 14:16 -0700
          Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-25 15:51 -1000
            Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 20:14 -0700
              Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-25 23:11 -0500
                Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 21:53 -0700
                  Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-26 01:27 -0500
                    Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-26 07:06 -0700
                      Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-26 11:34 -0500
                      Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 19:13 +0200
                        Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-27 04:49 -0700
                  Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-25 21:20 -1000
              Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-25 21:23 -1000
                Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-26 00:53 -0700
            Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> - 2012-11-21 16:21 +0000
    Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-24 06:55 -0400
      Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-24 08:17 -1000
        Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:23 -0400
          Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 22:18 -0700
          Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-24 21:47 -1000
            Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 11:21 -0700
              Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-25 08:43 -1000
                Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 12:18 -0700
                Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 19:55 -0400
                  Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-26 17:38 -1000
              Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 09:07 -0700
            Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 19:56 -0400
              Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-26 17:47 -1000
                Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-26 22:04 -0700
                  Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-27 07:27 -0700
                    Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-27 19:14 +0200
      Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 11:48 -0700
        Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 19:14 -0400
    Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-24 10:41 -0700
      Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Pavel Klinkovsky <pavel.klinkovsky@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 13:10 -0700
        Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-24 14:00 -1000
          Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Pavel Klinkovsky <pavel.klinkovsky@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 23:54 -0700
        Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:29 -0400
          Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 22:25 -0700
            Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Pavel Klinkovsky <pavel.klinkovsky@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 23:57 -0700
          Re: I Don't Make Mistakes. I Use C Pavel Klinkovsky <pavel.klinkovsky@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 00:11 -0700
      Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-24 16:14 -0700
        Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 17:16 -0700
          Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-24 17:47 -0700
        Re: I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 10:17 -0400

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#16632 — I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C

I was recently at Design East in Boston. The show is changing with more of a slant towards software and hardware tools. I met with a number of companies like AdaCore and LDRA. One topic we always tend to talk about is the challenge of convincing C/C++ programmers that static and dynamic analysis tools are more than expensive tools or that Ada is more than a military programming language. 

One idea that came up a number of times in slightly different terms is that many programmers think other people make mistakes but if they do then they can find and fix them or they will be unimportant. The bottom line is "I don't make mistakes." 

Of course no one would admit to this. Anyone who has programmed knows that mistakes occur and that bugs can cause major problems. The problem with tools like C and C++ is that they are powerful but it is all too easy to shoot oneself in the foot... 

The cost of finding and fixings bugs has not really changed a lot. Figure a factor of ten in cost for each step software moves away from the programmer. 

The big difference is that it is now possible to significantly reduce the number of bugs in the field. It has to do more with using the right tools rather than whether you don't make mistakes because you will. 

So what about Ada? 

I know that few C/C++ programmers will switch but it is not as if I have not made the recommendation before (see C Programmers, Time To Try Ada http://electronicdesign.com/blog/altembedded-6/embedded/programmers-time-ada-73975). 

... Ada is what I would pick over C or C++ for embedded projects. 

Why? Because it is easier to write programs without bugs with Ada compared to C++ and definitely better than C. 
-.-
Excerpt from "I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C"
Source: 
http://electronicdesign.com/blog/altembedded-6/embedded/dont-mistakes-74459

What about Forth ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16633

visualforth@rocketmail.com writes:
> I know that few C/C++ programmers will switch but it is not as if I
> have not made the recommendation before (see C Programmers, Time To
> Try Ada ...

http://adahome.com/Ammo/cpp2ada.html is a pretty good article about
moving from C++ to Ada.

> What about Forth ?

Forth as far as I can tell is used mostly in rather small systems and
emphasizes ease of experimentation through interactivity.  The main
features of Ada relate best to large programs, using cumbersome
machinery that delivers less benefit when used at a smaller scale.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16634

I used C for https://github.com/jackokring/miChronos/wiki but then C was easily available on the target, and other languages were not. To decide on a language before evaluation of the project is putting the cart before the horse.

This is one of those Haskell threads no?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16640

jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> writes:
> I used C for https://github.com/jackokring/miChronos/wiki but then C
> was easily available on the target, and other languages were not.

I thought there was Forth for the Chronos, and if there's not, it would
sure be a nice Forth target.  It should be easy to adapt an existing
MSP430 Forth.  

If anyone wonders, the Chronos is a wristwatch with a programmable
MSP430 in it:

  http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/EZ430-Chronos

It has 32kb of program flash, 4k of ram, and wireless communications.
The MSP430 is of course a 16-bit cpu that's quite nice for Forth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16675

> I thought there was Forth for the Chronos, and if there's not, it would
> sure be a nice Forth target.  It should be easy to adapt an existing
> MSP430 Forth.  

No doubt forth would be more efficient on memory, but the aim was to get a project up and running in a short amount of time. This necessitated C and the limited 16KB compiler and the pre-compiled libraries to exceed the 16KB limit, while having the radio modules working. There is no forth that currently does this. So in principal easy, but practicality the time requirement is exceeded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16635

On 10/23/12 1:09 PM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
...
> -.-
> Excerpt from "I Don’t Make Mistakes. I Use C"
> Source:
> http://electronicdesign.com/blog/altembedded-6/embedded/dont-mistakes-74459
>
> What about Forth ?
>

Folks who design languages have a target programmer/user in mind. I 
remember when Ada was being designed and various prototypes were being 
published and reviewed. The target programmer for Ada was a very 
low-level coder, working from a rigid spec in a "waterfall" development 
process in a very large project. Because this was a very junior person, 
it was assumed that the compiler had to second-guess everything.

Once Ada was released for use, the military (which had asked for it, and 
initially required its use) found that their software costs went through 
the roof. Very soon they modified the rule to require Ada only for 
projects budgeted >$1m, and some years later dropped it altogether.

There is still a dedicated corps of Ada advocates, about the size of the 
Forth community according to some estimates.

Forth also had a target programmer in mind: Chuck designed it for 
himself. He included all the features that he felt made him more 
productive and his programs more reliable: interactivity, modularity, 
maximum programmer control. This works for people who are very smart, 
very knowledgeable about their application domain, and willing to assume 
responsibility for their work. In other words, the opposite of the 
target Ada programmer.

As for size of projects: Forth tends to shrink projects (that is, 
projects originally expected to require 30 or 40 programmers were done 
in a shorter time with 10-15). I've worked on or managed several fairly 
large projects (10+ programmers), and found Forth works well in that 
environment providing you insist on getting the smartest and most 
professional folks you can find.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16637

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> As for size of projects: Forth tends to shrink projects (that is,
> projects originally expected to require 30 or 40 programmers were done
> in a shorter time with 10-15). I've worked on or managed several
> fairly large projects (10+ programmers), and found Forth works well in
> that environment providing you insist on getting the smartest and most
> professional folks you can find.

The latter tends to work well for most tasks.  There's some sort of 
"inverse Brooks' law".  Brooks' law is that adding people to a late 
project makes it later - the people you add will drag the project down, 
because they are inexperienced with the project and need training.  The 
inverse Brooks' law is that removing people from a project makes it 
finish sooner.  It's not removing arbitrary people, it's removing the 
weak people who drag the project down, by doing "negative work" (the 
Wallys in Dilbert's world).

Brooks also found that programming is a task with a very high difference 
between weak and strong programmers; his (rather small) sample had a 
factor of 20 - in all dimenions, i.e. the good programmer had the 
program done in 5% of the time, using 5% of the LoCs, 5% CPU time and 5% 
memory.  The reason IMHO is that programming is a task that exceeds our 
mental capabilites (of all of us, including the brightest and smartest).  
Tasks that require below average mental capabilities show almost no 
deviations, i.e. you can let anybody do them, they will do them all 
about as good, and they will all complain that it is boring.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16645

On Oct 24, 1:51 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> > As for size of projects: Forth tends to shrink projects (that is,
> > projects originally expected to require 30 or 40 programmers were done
> > in a shorter time with 10-15). I've worked on or managed several
> > fairly large projects (10+ programmers), and found Forth works well in
> > that environment providing you insist on getting the smartest and most
> > professional folks you can find.
>
> The latter tends to work well for most tasks.  There's some sort of
> "inverse Brooks' law".  Brooks' law is that adding people to a late
> project makes it later - the people you add will drag the project down,
> because they are inexperienced with the project and need training.  The
> inverse Brooks' law is that removing people from a project makes it
> finish sooner.  It's not removing arbitrary people, it's removing the
> weak people who drag the project down, by doing "negative work" (the
> Wallys in Dilbert's world).
>
> Brooks also found that programming is a task with a very high difference
> between weak and strong programmers; his (rather small) sample had a
> factor of 20 - in all dimenions, i.e. the good programmer had the
> program done in 5% of the time, using 5% of the LoCs, 5% CPU time and 5%
> memory.  The reason IMHO is that programming is a task that exceeds our
> mental capabilites (of all of us, including the brightest and smartest).
> Tasks that require below average mental capabilities show almost no
> deviations, i.e. you can let anybody do them, they will do them all
> about as good, and they will all complain that it is boring.
>
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/

From a very good book called The Mythical Man Month:

More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time
than for all other causes combined. Why is this cause of disaster
so common?

First, our techniques of estimating are poorly developed. More
seriously, they reflect an unvoiced assumption which is quite untrue,
i.e., that all will go well.

Second, our estimating techniques fallaciously confuse effort
with progress, hiding the assumption that men and months are
interchangeable.

Third, because we are uncertain of our estimates, software
managers often lack the courteous stubbornness of Antoine's chef.
Fourth, schedule progress is poorly monitored. Techniques
proven and routine in other engineering disciplines are considered
radical innovations in software engineering.

Fifth, when schedule slippage is recognized, the natural (and
traditional) response is to add manpower. Like dousing a fire with
gasoline, this makes matters worse, much worse. More fire requires
more gasoline, and thus begins a regenerative cycle which
ends in disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16641

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> Once Ada was released for use, the military (which had asked for it,
> and initially required its use) found that their software costs went
> through the roof. Very soon they modified the rule to require Ada only
> for projects budgeted >$1m, and some years later dropped it
> altogether.

Meh, Ada didn't catch on because the early compilers were very
expensive, and vendors wanted to use C.  

Ada is sort of a tanked-up version of Pascal, which was very popular in
the microcomputer world for a while (think of Turbo Pascal), so it's not
as if the language itself is intractable.  It's more verbose and less
flexible than C or C++, but you could say the same thing of Java.  It
also doesn't have anything like the code ecosystem that those other
languages do.  But if you don't depend on that, it certainly seems
usable if you've got the tools for it.

There is a newsgroup (comp.lang.ada) and an IRC channel for it and I've
looked at them, along with some Ada books and articles.  I haven't
actually written anything in Ada beyond "hello world", but I do
sometimes think of using it for something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16642 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
> 
> Once Ada was released for use, the military (which had asked for it, and 
> initially required its use) found that their software costs went through 
> the roof.

I haven't heard that before, but it doesn't strike me as hugely
surprising.  Have yo got any more info about that?

Thanks,
Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16659 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

On 10/24/12 12:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>>
>> Once Ada was released for use, the military (which had asked for it, and
>> initially required its use) found that their software costs went through
>> the roof.
>
> I haven't heard that before, but it doesn't strike me as hugely
> surprising.  Have yo got any more info about that?

I originally heard it from some Army officers managing a large project 
Chuck and I worked on in about 1980. There's a good article on the 
history of Ada here:
http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/articles/view/100190

"Until recently, Ada development environments were costly and required 
too high a level of computing resources for most commercial teams. The 
rigidity of interfaces and focus on maintenance over development did not 
fit the evolutionary nature of many commercial applications."

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16670 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> "Until recently, Ada development environments were costly and required
> too high a level of computing resources for most commercial teams. The
> rigidity of interfaces and focus on maintenance over development did
> not fit the evolutionary nature of many commercial applications."

I'm no Ada expert but I don't have the impression Ada's interfaces are
especially more rigid than Java's.  That leaves the expense of the
development environments, which apparently really was a serious problem,
but not one intrinsic to the language.  Today there's at least one good
free implementation (GNAT), so Ada is more accessible now than it was.

I know a guy who worked on Ada code for space systems.  He said the
amount of code in those systems was "inhuman".  How much of that was
bloat, I don't know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16673 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Dne středa, 24. října 2012 22:11:43 UTC+2 Paul Rubin napsal(a):
> Today there's at least one good free implementation (GNAT), 
> so Ada is more accessible now than it was.

That is fully right.

> I know a guy who worked on Ada code for space systems.  He said the
> amount of code in those systems was "inhuman".

I think I can imagine how he feels. ;)

Pavel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16701 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> > "Until recently, Ada development environments were costly and required
> > too high a level of computing resources for most commercial teams. The
> > rigidity of interfaces and focus on maintenance over development did
> > not fit the evolutionary nature of many commercial applications."
> 
> I'm no Ada expert but I don't have the impression Ada's interfaces are
> especially more rigid than Java's.

And, Ada is much better than almost any system at separate compilation and
making sure things like arguments are consistent and correct across the
whole application.

> That leaves the expense of the development environments, which apparently
> really was 

/is/

> a serious problem, but not one intrinsic to the language.  Today there's
> at least one good free implementation (GNAT), so Ada is more accessible
> now than it was. 

It isn't, since you can't use the free implementation (U.S. taxpayer funded,
btw) for anything having to do with work (because there isn't any support)
and not anything closed source (it's GPL). BTW this has been out for a long
time already, over a decade, but it hasn't helped.

The other implementations, aside from RR Software, are all at least USD
5,000 per seat/per year and some considerably more than that. Certainly
out of the range of Visual Studio whatever.

> I know a guy who worked on Ada code for space systems.  He said the
> amount of code in those systems was "inhuman".  How much of that was
> bloat, I don't know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16703 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
writes:
> It isn't, since you can't use the free implementation (U.S. taxpayer funded,
> btw) for anything having to do with work (because there isn't any support)
> and not anything closed source (it's GPL).

I gather that the compiler part of the free system is the same as the
non-free one (both are GPL, as they must be because they are both based
on GCC).  The non-free system comes with some additional tools that are
non-GPL, so you get to decide whether you want to pay for those.  The
same thing with support: a heck of a lot of companies rely on
unsupported builds of GCC, and GNAT is about the same.  As for closed
source: the GPL applies to the compiler itself (so any modified version
of the compiler must also be GPL), not the code that it generates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16732 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
> writes:
> > It isn't, since you can't use the free implementation (U.S. taxpayer funded,
> > btw) for anything having to do with work (because there isn't any support)
> > and not anything closed source (it's GPL).
> 
> I gather that the compiler part of the free system is the same as the
> non-free one (both are GPL, as they must be because they are both based
> on GCC).

No, the compiler is not the same. There are three current versions of the
code: there's the version Adacore sells which is effectively proprietary and
only delivered to people who pay the USD 20,000 yearly minimum for a support
contract; this is certified for safety-critical environments. There's the
GNAT-GPL version with pure GPL code and runtime, that's available for people
who don't pay, on very limited platforms, and there's the gcc-Ada tree that
comes with mostly LGPL libraries. Bug fixes by Adacore are not released into
the wild; they will be applied to paying customer's code and perhaps later
to the other trees, no guarantees, no support.

The rest of your post is also simply wrong and I'm not going to quote any of
it any further. I think you should have done a little more research, these
issues are quite well understood since there are Adacore customers and
developers hanging out on c.l.a. who have explained this before.

The GNAT GPL version uses GPL (not LGPL or MGPL) libraries, so it cannot be
used for closed source code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16733 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
>> writes:
>> > It isn't, since you can't use the free implementation (U.S. taxpayer funded,
>> > btw) for anything having to do with work (because there isn't any support)
>> > and not anything closed source (it's GPL).
>> 
>> I gather that the compiler part of the free system is the same as the
>> non-free one (both are GPL, as they must be because they are both based
>> on GCC).
> 
> No, the compiler is not the same. There are three current versions
> of the code: there's the version Adacore sells which is effectively
> proprietary and only delivered to people who pay the USD 20,000
> yearly minimum for a support contract; this is certified for
> safety-critical environments.

How can the compiler be "effectively proprietary"?  AFAIK it's based
on GCC, so it must be free software.

> There's the GNAT-GPL version with pure GPL code and runtime, that's
> available for people who don't pay, on very limited platforms, and
> there's the gcc-Ada tree that comes with mostly LGPL libraries. Bug
> fixes by Adacore are not released into the wild; they will be
> applied to paying customer's code and perhaps later to the other
> trees, no guarantees, no support.
> 
> The rest of your post is also simply wrong and I'm not going to
> quote any of it any further. I think you should have done a little
> more research, these issues are quite well understood since there
> are Adacore customers and developers hanging out on c.l.a. who have
> explained this before.

I had a look, and couldn't see anything specific.  I can see that
there is potentially a problem with proprietary and/or pure GPL
runtime libraries for GNAT.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16736 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

On Friday, October 26, 2012 2:02:13 AM UTC-7, Anonymous wrote:
> There's the version Adacore sells which is effectively proprietary and
> only delivered to people who pay the USD 20,000 yearly minimum for a support
> contract; this is certified for safety-critical environments.

That makes the license terms of commercial Forths go down much easier.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16724 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> And, Ada is much better than almost any system at separate compilation and
> making sure things like arguments are consistent and correct across the
> whole application.
> 
>> That leaves the expense of the development environments, which apparently
>> really was 
> 
> /is/
> 
>> a serious problem, but not one intrinsic to the language.  Today there's
>> at least one good free implementation (GNAT), so Ada is more accessible
>> now than it was. 
> 
> It isn't, since you can't use the free implementation (U.S. taxpayer
> funded, btw) for anything having to do with work (because there
> isn't any support) and not anything closed source (it's GPL).

Well, hold on: if you want paid support GNAT is supported by AdaCore
and there is a version of the GNAT runtime library that isn't pure GPL
if you need to write proprietary software.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16807 — Re: I Don?t Make Mistakes. I Use C

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > And, Ada is much better than almost any system at separate compilation and
> > making sure things like arguments are consistent and correct across the
> > whole application.
> > 
> >> That leaves the expense of the development environments, which apparently
> >> really was 
> > 
> > /is/
> > 
> >> a serious problem, but not one intrinsic to the language.  Today there's
> >> at least one good free implementation (GNAT), so Ada is more accessible
> >> now than it was. 
> > 
> > It isn't, since you can't use the free implementation (U.S. taxpayer
> > funded, btw) for anything having to do with work (because there
> > isn't any support) and not anything closed source (it's GPL).
> 
> Well, hold on: if you want paid support GNAT is supported by AdaCore

The statement I responded to was quoted above, "Today there's at least one
good free implementation (GNAT)".

That's incorrect. It's partially correct, it's good but it's not free.

GNAT comes in two flavours, GPL, with no support option and with GPL
libraries, two things that make it untenable for business. The Adacore
version you mention is USD 20,000 minimum for support, but you can't get the
code unless you pay for support. It's not just add-on tools, it's different
code from both the gcc-ada and GNAT GPL trees which is guaranteed by Adacore
under various standards for safety-critical applications, a designation
required by aerospace and certain civilian contracts. Bug fixes hit the paid
version first, and the other versions later, maybe. 

And the point is that various flavours of GNAT have been around for over a
decade, so it's not useful to say "Ada is more accessible now than it was."
Really, Ada is less accessible now than it was. In the DOS days there were
cheap and free compilers available. Ada has always been accessible, not to
the degree that common languages like FORTRAN and C have been available, but
it has been available. Now it's relegated to government contracts and is
among the more expensive toolchains, if not the most expensive.

> and there is a version of the GNAT runtime library that isn't pure GPL if
> you need to write proprietary software. 

But it's not supported and no company is going to bet their business on core
tools with no accountability or support, so no enterprise is going to use
it. I think if you go looking for proprietary software written with gcc-Ada
and the LGPL libraries you'll come back tired and disappointed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web