Reenabling Ada by default

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

Richard Kenner wrote:
> Kaveh Ghazi wrote:
>>    One of the powerful ways people learn is by reading the patch list,
>>    *if* the patches follow our rules.  A self-contained patch with an
>>    explanation (and testcase if appropriate) is much easier to grok than
>>    a sterile jumbo batch.  You merely help maintain Ada's marginal status
>>    by keeping everything cloistered and the expertise all within ACT.
>
> "Self-contained" is not nearly as easy as you think.  Ada is a quite large
> language.  GNAT has been around for over a decade.  Although there are still
> the occaisional "how did *that* ever work?" sort of bugs, most bugs found
> are quite subtle and the amount of information needed to make their
> explanation "self-contained" and understandable to people who aren't Ada
> experts is large.

The argument about the size of the language can also be made for C++. 
Nevertheless, we have a good number of people who know it.


> Neither Robert, Arno, or myself are saying this is impossible.  What I'm
> saying is that the cost-benefit analysis of this is different from the
> other front ends on both sides.  On the one side, the benefit of doing
> it is far less because there isn't a set of people out there who are
> eager to learn all about Ada (it would be nice if there *were*, but let's
> be realistic!).  On the other, the cost is higher for the reasons
> I've outlined.

I think the case Kaveh was making is actually quite powerful: when gcc became 
egcs, with its open development model, it drew in a surprising number of 
people. The possibility to read patches and participate in the development 
seems to be so attractive that the project as a whole benefits. From my own 
experience in the last two years, almost all my co-bugmasters except for me 
have eventually ventured into writing first small patches for small problems, 
but at least two (Giovanni and Andrew) have gone on to tackle larger 
projects. There are also likely people in the gcc project who are not users 
of C++, but over time have acquired enough knowledge of the C++ front end to 
make the occasional change. On the other hand, some of us probably still 
remember that the development model pre-egcs eventually broke down due to 
lack of manpower.

This historical precedent seems to indicate that a more open approach can draw 
in developers. Assume Ada development was more transparent, with smaller and 
more easily understandable patches being sent, and a lively discussion about 
them. Even occasional readers of these messages would gain some knowledge of 
the way the Ada front end works, and they may try to accasionally run the Ada 
testsuite and fix something in it.

Most would agree that Ada is a good language, and I could imagine many would 
play around with it a little if you could get them more interested in it. 
Offer them pieces of information to get hooked, in the form of small patches. 
It may increase the number of people who care about Ada and help out in its 
development. Big bulk patches, on the other hand, are certainly not what gets 
Ada front end beginners drawn in.

W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/