On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 6:43 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 11/14/21 5:05 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> There is a move towards more safe languages for systems programming.
>>>
>>> The current fashion, Rust, has horrible syntax, and I have no confidence
>>> that code written in it today will still compile on the Rust compilers
>>> of 5 to 10 years from now, but its use is being driven by the desire
>>> for using safer languages.
>>>
>>> When Rust falls out of fashion, it would be nice if whatever follows
>>> Rust would address both of those problems.
>>
>> I thought this is the problem Ada was created to fix?  :-)
>
> It was.
>
> But Ada did fall out of fashion.
>
> There are probably many explanations for that, but my guess
> is that the complexity of the language turned out to be a
> problem.
>

There's also the problem that the Ada compiler situation overall is not
good and that Adacore's Community Edition version of GNAT is pure GPL
with no runtime exception. See https://www.adacore.com/community for
details.

There's still the FSF distribution of GNAT (at least for the targets
it supports) however.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 2:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 1:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> However, you have been way too quick to issue a "trigger warning"
>>> request without even telling me what "triggered" you. :-)
>>>
>>> Was it comparing BLISS-32 to Macro-32 ?
>>>
>>> Was it the desire to have a Pascal-like or Ada-like language as a
>>> viable system implementation language ?
>>
>> I'm figuring this is it.  No such thing as a language that can do
>> everything. Sometimes simpler is better.
>
> Programming languages are definitely not "one size fits all".
>
> I totally agree that simpler is better for programming languages.
>
> And this is not just you and me - very complex languages tend not
> to prosper in the industry.
>
> But I don't think Simon's point was complex vs simple.
>
> More like structured vs goto style. and strong typing vs weak
> typing.
>

Yes, very much so.

> Because Ada is a complex language, but Pascal is actually a relative
> simple language (at least in traditional form and in VMS flavor - Delphi
> has sort of moved a bit in the complex direction).
>

I can't help but wonder however if there's still a latent market for a
language that has all the basics and type safety of Ada but without all
the complexity that has been bolted onto Ada (especially in recent versions).

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 5:05 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> One really doesn't need a language or compiler to get in the way of what needs
>>> to be done.
>>
>> There is a move towards more safe languages for systems programming.
>>
>> The current fashion, Rust, has horrible syntax, and I have no confidence
>> that code written in it today will still compile on the Rust compilers
>> of 5 to 10 years from now, but its use is being driven by the desire
>> for using safer languages.
>>
>> When Rust falls out of fashion, it would be nice if whatever follows
>> Rust would address both of those problems.
>
> Rust seems to be getting some traction.
>

Unfortunately so. I like the concepts and desire to move to safer
languages but I find the Rust syntax itself ugly. People seem to
have forgotten that you write the code once (hopefully!) but then
read it many times.

> With Mozilla, Microsoft and Linux kernel adding Rust code and
> with Google and Amazon also backing it, then it may be difficult
> to fall out of fashion.
>

I wonder how many of them were major fans of Ruby and Ruby on Rails
before that environment and language were suddenly no longer fashionable ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 11/15/2021 1:39 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 2:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2021 1:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> However, you have been way too quick to issue a "trigger warning"
>>>> request without even telling me what "triggered" you. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Was it comparing BLISS-32 to Macro-32 ?
>>>>
>>>> Was it the desire to have a Pascal-like or Ada-like language as a
>>>> viable system implementation language ?
>>>
>>> I'm figuring this is it.  No such thing as a language that can do
>>> everything. Sometimes simpler is better.
>>
>> Programming languages are definitely not "one size fits all".
>>
>> I totally agree that simpler is better for programming languages.
>>
>> And this is not just you and me - very complex languages tend not
>> to prosper in the industry.
>>
>> But I don't think Simon's point was complex vs simple.
>>
>> More like structured vs goto style. and strong typing vs weak
>> typing.
>
> Yes, very much so.
>
>> Because Ada is a complex language, but Pascal is actually a relative
>> simple language (at least in traditional form and in VMS flavor - Delphi
>> has sort of moved a bit in the complex direction).
>
> I can't help but wonder however if there's still a latent market for a
> language that has all the basics and type safety of Ada but without all
> the complexity that has been bolted onto Ada (especially in recent versions).

Maybe there is.

But right now the only two languages in the "low level"
"more safe than C/C++" category with some traction seems
to be Rust and Go.

And I don't think they are nearly as safe as Ada.

Arne

On 11/15/2021 1:34 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 6:43 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 11/14/21 5:05 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> There is a move towards more safe languages for systems programming.
>>>>
>>>> The current fashion, Rust, has horrible syntax, and I have no confidence
>>>> that code written in it today will still compile on the Rust compilers
>>>> of 5 to 10 years from now, but its use is being driven by the desire
>>>> for using safer languages.
>>>>
>>>> When Rust falls out of fashion, it would be nice if whatever follows
>>>> Rust would address both of those problems.
>>>
>>> I thought this is the problem Ada was created to fix?  :-)
>>
>> It was.
>>
>> But Ada did fall out of fashion.
>>
>> There are probably many explanations for that, but my guess
>> is that the complexity of the language turned out to be a
>> problem.
>
> There's also the problem that the Ada compiler situation overall is not
> good and that Adacore's Community Edition version of GNAT is pure GPL
> with no runtime exception. See https://www.adacore.com/community for
> details.

I know about that restriction. It has been discussed before.

If they really wanted it then they would pay ACT for the commercial edition.

> There's still the FSF distribution of GNAT (at least for the targets
> it supports) however.

Unfortunately then most GCC dists does not include gnat.

Supposedly m2 is going to be in standard GCC dist going forward,
so maybe Modula-2 instead of Ada??

Arne

On 11/15/2021 1:51 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 5:05 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> One really doesn't need a language or compiler to get in the way of what needs
>>>> to be done.
>>>
>>> There is a move towards more safe languages for systems programming.
>>>
>>> The current fashion, Rust, has horrible syntax, and I have no confidence
>>> that code written in it today will still compile on the Rust compilers
>>> of 5 to 10 years from now, but its use is being driven by the desire
>>> for using safer languages.
>>>
>>> When Rust falls out of fashion, it would be nice if whatever follows
>>> Rust would address both of those problems.
>>
>> Rust seems to be getting some traction.
>>
>
> Unfortunately so. I like the concepts and desire to move to safer
> languages but I find the Rust syntax itself ugly. People seem to
> have forgotten that you write the code once (hopefully!) but then
> read it many times.

What do you think about Go?

It does not have the same interest from OS people like Rust, but
it have a lot of interest from the container people. So maybe ...

>> With Mozilla, Microsoft and Linux kernel adding Rust code and
>> with Google and Amazon also backing it, then it may be difficult
>> to fall out of fashion.
>
> I wonder how many of them were major fans of Ruby and Ruby on Rails
> before that environment and language were suddenly no longer fashionable ?

The popularity of RoR/Ruby has declined a bit the last decade, but it is
still an order of magnitude more popular than both Ada and Rust.

But probably not a relevant comparison. The expected lifetime of a web
application is significant shorter than of an OS kernel module.

Arne

On 11/15/21 2:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 1:34 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2021 6:43 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/21 5:05 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> There is a move towards more safe languages for systems programming.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current fashion, Rust, has horrible syntax, and I have no
>>>>> confidence
>>>>> that code written in it today will still compile on the Rust compilers
>>>>> of 5 to 10 years from now, but its use is being driven by the desire
>>>>> for using safer languages.
>>>>>
>>>>> When Rust falls out of fashion, it would be nice if whatever follows
>>>>> Rust would address both of those problems.
>>>>
>>>> I thought this is the problem Ada was created to fix?  :-)
>>>
>>> It was.
>>>
>>> But Ada did fall out of fashion.
>>>
>>> There are probably many explanations for that, but my guess
>>> is that the complexity of the language turned out to be a
>>> problem.
>>
>> There's also the problem that the Ada compiler situation overall is not
>> good and that Adacore's Community Edition version of GNAT is pure GPL
>> with no runtime exception. See https://www.adacore.com/community for
>> details.
>
> I know about that restriction. It has been discussed before.
>
> If they really wanted it then they would pay ACT for the commercial
> edition.
>
> > There's still the FSF distribution of GNAT (at least for the targets
> > it supports) however.
>
> Unfortunately then most GCC dists does not include gnat.
>
> Supposedly m2 is going to be in standard GCC dist going forward,
> so maybe Modula-2 instead of Ada??
>

But, sadly, Modula was intended for applications and not systems
programming. I seriously doubt you could write a functional OS
beyond the most simplistic in Modula.

bill

On 11/15/21 1:51 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-11-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 5:05 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> One really doesn't need a language or compiler to get in the way of what needs
>>>> to be done.
>>>
>>> There is a move towards more safe languages for systems programming.
>>>
>>> The current fashion, Rust, has horrible syntax, and I have no confidence
>>> that code written in it today will still compile on the Rust compilers
>>> of 5 to 10 years from now, but its use is being driven by the desire
>>> for using safer languages.
>>>
>>> When Rust falls out of fashion, it would be nice if whatever follows
>>> Rust would address both of those problems.
>>
>> Rust seems to be getting some traction.
>>
>
> Unfortunately so. I like the concepts and desire to move to safer
> languages but I find the Rust syntax itself ugly. People seem to
> have forgotten that you write the code once (hopefully!) but then
> read it many times.
>
>> With Mozilla, Microsoft and Linux kernel adding Rust code and
>> with Google and Amazon also backing it, then it may be difficult
>> to fall out of fashion.
>>
>
> I wonder how many of them were major fans of Ruby and Ruby on Rails
> before that environment and language were suddenly no longer fashionable ?
>

Makes one wonder why Safe C was never developed further. :-)

bill

This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
question in my mind.

Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
any part of VMS using Ada? Device Driver? Anything?

bill

On 11/15/2021 3:49 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 11/15/21 2:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Supposedly m2 is going to be in standard GCC dist going forward,
>> so maybe Modula-2 instead of Ada??
>
> But, sadly, Modula was intended for applications and not systems
> programming.  I seriously doubt you could write a functional OS
> beyond the most simplistic in Modula.

Modula-2 was created with the intention to write
OS code (Lilith) and does have a bunch of machine
close constructs and in most flavors integration
with C and assembler.

Arne

On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
> question in my mind.
>
> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?

When Ada on VMS was a thing, then I believe the only supported
language for device drivers was Macro-32.

But they could have written something else. Per the old
story about using every language for at least one small
piece of VMS, then there should be an Ada piece as well.
No ideas whether there actually is or was.

Arne

On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
> question in my mind.
>
> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?

ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.

Both are being rewritten in C.

--

-- Rob

In article <ivg04vFmkaaU1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> writes:
>This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>question in my mind.
>
>Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>any part of VMS using Ada? Device Driver? Anything?

The SECURITY SERVER comes to mind. ;)

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

Den 2021-11-15 kl. 22:18, skrev Robert A. Brooks:
> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>> question in my mind.
>>
>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>
> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>
> Both are being rewritten in C.
>

OK! Could that answer why our ACMELDAP makes the ACME_SERVER crash
multiple times each day stopping our roll-out of the switch from
local UAF to AD/LDAP login authentication?

And does "being rewritten in C" imply that there is a new version
in the works? And that our current ACME_SERVER that crashes all
the time is *currently* written in Ada? Interesting...

On 11/14/2021 6:50 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> More like structured vs goto style. and strong typing vs weak
> typing.

Languages don't provide structure, programmers do that.

Perhaps not all programmers end up with good structure.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 11/15/21 4:18 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>> question in my mind.
>>
>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>
> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>
> Both are being rewritten in C.
>

Were there ever any internal benchmarks run against them so that
a comparison of performance when the C conversion is done could
be looked at?

bill

On 11/15/2021 5:22 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-11-15 kl. 22:18, skrev Robert A. Brooks:
>> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>>> question in my mind.
>>>
>>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>>
>> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>>
>> Both are being rewritten in C.
>>
>
> OK! Could that answer why our ACMELDAP makes the ACME_SERVER crash
> multiple times each day stopping our roll-out of the switch from
> local UAF to AD/LDAP login authentication?
>
> And does "being rewritten in C" imply that there is a new version
> in the works?

Yes, but I don't know if it'll be available for IA64 and Alpha.
It could be, but I'm not at all involved in that project.

> And that our current ACME_SERVER that crashes all
> the time is *currently* written in Ada? Interesting...

The one you are running is definitely written in ADA.

--

-- Rob

On 11/15/2021 6:28 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 11/15/21 4:18 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>>> question in my mind.
>>>
>>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>>
>> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>>
>> Both are being rewritten in C.
>>
>
> Were there ever any internal benchmarks run against them so that
> a comparison of performance when the C conversion is done could
> be looked at?

Probably not, since for X86, there is no ADA compiler, so it
needed to be rewritten.

--

-- Rob

On 11/15/2021 5:41 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 6:50 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> More like structured vs goto style. and strong typing vs weak
>> typing.
>
> Languages don't provide structure, programmers do that.
>
> Perhaps not all programmers end up with good structure.

Actually programming languages do provide features that
are commonly labeled "structured programming".

Which is really most programming languages: the
Algol/Pascal/Modula-2/Ada family, the C/C++/Java/C# family
etc..

Original Fortran and Basic did not qualify - too dependent
on GOTO. But modern flavors of those languages do qualify
as well.

Even though Python's block concept is let us call it "unusual"
(indentation based) then it also qualifies.

Arne

On 11/15/2021 6:28 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 11/15/21 4:18 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>>> question in my mind.
>>>
>>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>>
>> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>>
>> Both are being rewritten in C.
>
> Were there ever any internal benchmarks run against them so that
> a comparison of performance when the C conversion is done could
> be looked at?

Depending on how many checks were disabled in the Ada version, then
the C version may be a little or a lot faster,

But I cannot imagine it having any significance on modern hardware.

They did not rewrite in C to save CPU cycles but because they did
not have an Ada compiler for the new platform.

Arne

On 11/15/21 7:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 6:28 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 11/15/21 4:18 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>>>> question in my mind.
>>>>
>>>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>>>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>>>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>>>
>>> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>>>
>>> Both are being rewritten in C.
>>
>> Were there ever any internal benchmarks run against them so that
>> a comparison of performance when the C conversion is done could
>> be looked at?
>
> Depending on how many checks were disabled in the Ada version, then
> the C version may be a little or a lot faster,
>
> But I cannot imagine it having any significance on modern hardware.
>
> They did not rewrite in C to save CPU cycles but because they did
> not have an Ada compiler for the new platform.
>

I realize all that. I would just like to see some comparisons.
I don't know that any were actually done. It all goes back to
a comment I got from someone from the Ada Users Group about 30
years ago. I mentioned an interest in a version of Unix rewritten
in Ada and was quickly informed that while it could be done it
would result in a useless operating system because the Ada version
would be very inefficient. Needless to say, I never tried it.
Might be fun to dig up some benchmarks and try it, but I always
prefer real world examples to contrived benchmarks.

bill

On 16/11/21 7:48 am, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>> question in my mind.
>>
>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>
> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>
> Both are being rewritten in C.

V9.1-A has a SECURITY_SERVER but no ACME_SERVER.

This suggests SECURITY_SERVER currently is in field-test.

--
Anyone, who using social-media, forms an opinion regarding anything
other than the relative cuteness of this or that puppy-dog, needs
seriously to examine their critical thinking.

On 11/15/2021 8:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 11/15/21 7:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/15/2021 6:28 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 11/15/21 4:18 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>>>>> question in my mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>>>>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>>>>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>>>>
>>>> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>>>>
>>>> Both are being rewritten in C.
>>>
>>> Were there ever any internal benchmarks run against them so that
>>> a comparison of performance when the C conversion is done could
>>> be looked at?
>>
>> Depending on how many checks were disabled in the Ada version, then
>> the C version may be a little or a lot faster,
>>
>> But I cannot imagine it having any significance on modern hardware.
>>
>> They did not rewrite in C to save CPU cycles but because they did
>> not have an Ada compiler for the new platform.
>
> I realize all that.  I would just like to see some comparisons.
> I don't know that any were actually done.  It all goes back to
> a comment I got from someone from the Ada Users Group about 30
> years ago.  I mentioned an interest in a version of Unix rewritten
> in Ada and was quickly informed that while it could be done it
> would result in a useless operating system because the Ada version
> would be very inefficient.  Needless to say, I never tried it.
> Might be fun to dig up some benchmarks and try it, but I always
> prefer real world examples to contrived benchmarks.

But there are two very different questions here.

Would Ada vs C for OS mean something 30 years ago (VAX 6000 and 3000)?

Would Ada vs C for OS mean something today (16/24/32 core x86-64)?

Arne

On 11/15/21 9:23 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 8:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 11/15/21 7:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2021 6:28 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/21 4:18 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2021 4:01 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> This talk of Ada, VMS and Systems programming has raised a new
>>>>>> question in my mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that Ada got it's start on VMS (one of the first validated
>>>>>> Ada Compilers was on VMS) has any attempt ever been made to write
>>>>>> any part of VMS using Ada?  Device Driver? Anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both are being rewritten in C.
>>>>
>>>> Were there ever any internal benchmarks run against them so that
>>>> a comparison of performance when the C conversion is done could
>>>> be looked at?
>>>
>>> Depending on how many checks were disabled in the Ada version, then
>>> the C version may be a little or a lot faster,
>>>
>>> But I cannot imagine it having any significance on modern hardware.
>>>
>>> They did not rewrite in C to save CPU cycles but because they did
>>> not have an Ada compiler for the new platform.
>>
>> I realize all that.  I would just like to see some comparisons.
>> I don't know that any were actually done.  It all goes back to
>> a comment I got from someone from the Ada Users Group about 30
>> years ago.  I mentioned an interest in a version of Unix rewritten
>> in Ada and was quickly informed that while it could be done it
>> would result in a useless operating system because the Ada version
>> would be very inefficient.  Needless to say, I never tried it.
>> Might be fun to dig up some benchmarks and try it, but I always
>> prefer real world examples to contrived benchmarks.
>
> But there are two very different questions here.
>
> Would Ada vs C for OS mean something 30 years ago (VAX 6000 and 3000)?
>
> Would Ada vs C for OS mean something today (16/24/32 core x86-64)?
>

Thus the reason we have so much bloatware today. If the program
runs badly, throw more cores at it. I am not interested in whether
or not something ran faster or slower on todays machines vs. yesterdays.
I am interested in whether or not ADD A TO B GIVING C is faster, slower
or the same between Ada and C.( and other languages as well!) Throwing
more cores at the above will not result in faster performance.

When I first started with programming we cared about programming and
efficiency. We profiled our programs in order to find the bad parts
and we fixed them. It is sad that efficiency is no longer considered
important to software development today. And they call it engineering
while we just called it programming.

bill

On 11/16/2021 7:15 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 11/15/21 9:23 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/15/2021 8:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 11/15/21 7:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2021 6:28 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/21 4:18 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>>>>>> ACME_SERVER and SECURITY_SERVER are written in ADA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both are being rewritten in C.
>>>>>
>>>>> Were there ever any internal benchmarks run against them so that
>>>>> a comparison of performance when the C conversion is done could
>>>>> be looked at?
>>>>
>>>> Depending on how many checks were disabled in the Ada version, then
>>>> the C version may be a little or a lot faster,
>>>>
>>>> But I cannot imagine it having any significance on modern hardware.
>>>>
>>>> They did not rewrite in C to save CPU cycles but because they did
>>>> not have an Ada compiler for the new platform.
>>>
>>> I realize all that.  I would just like to see some comparisons.
>>> I don't know that any were actually done.  It all goes back to
>>> a comment I got from someone from the Ada Users Group about 30
>>> years ago.  I mentioned an interest in a version of Unix rewritten
>>> in Ada and was quickly informed that while it could be done it
>>> would result in a useless operating system because the Ada version
>>> would be very inefficient.  Needless to say, I never tried it.
>>> Might be fun to dig up some benchmarks and try it, but I always
>>> prefer real world examples to contrived benchmarks.
>>
>> But there are two very different questions here.
>>
>> Would Ada vs C for OS mean something 30 years ago (VAX 6000 and 3000)?
>>
>> Would Ada vs C for OS mean something today (16/24/32 core x86-64)?
>
> Thus the reason we have so much bloatware today.  If the program
> runs badly, throw more cores at it. I am not interested in whether
> or not something ran faster or slower on todays machines vs. yesterdays.
> I am interested in whether or not ADD A TO B GIVING C is faster, slower
> or the same between Ada and C.( and other languages as well!) Throwing
> more cores at the above will not result in faster performance.
>
> When I first started with programming we cared about programming and
> efficiency.  We profiled our programs in order to find the bad parts
> and we fixed them.  It is sad that efficiency is no longer considered
> important to software development today.  And they call it engineering
> while we just called it programming.

I would say that there is a lot of focus on efficiency today.

But there are two types of such focus.

There is the hacker/nerd crowd that focus on micro-benchmarks
of all sorts of things. ADD A TO B GIVING C will fit fine in
that.

And then there is the engineering/professional crowd that
focus on actual solution/system performance. But what measurement
in this area prove to be relevant has changed over the last 30 years.
Unless one is in a specialized area like HPC then ADD A TO B GIVING C
is not relevant for solution/system performance today. They are
looking for round trips between tiers, interpreted vs compiled,
data models etc..

Arne