* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman
@ 1996-08-23 0:00 ` nasser
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert B. Love
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: nasser @ 1996-08-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
If DOD will not be using Ada, who will ?
An agent told me the other day that he knows of
only about 12 commerical companies in the US that
uses Ada for commerical software, everything else
is defense releated.
May be with this AIA recommendation, in few years one
will count on one hand the number of people
programming in Ada, becuase every one else will
be busy fixing bugs in all the new C and C++ code
that will now be written instead of Ada.
this is just great. more jobs for programmers who
like running after wild pointers and debugging
core dumps .
Please let me know where will be the first aircraft
whose control system was coded in C/C++ flying to, so
that I know where to run and hide :)
And I am going now to go buy more stocks in MircoSoft :)
Nasser
--
Nasser Abbasi. C/C++/Ada Solaris. Perkin Elmer - Applied BioSystem division.
email: nasser@apldbio.com MSEE, MSCS, MSCE, Fide chess master (FM).
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." Bill Gates, 1981
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication." Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* AIA Position on Ada
@ 1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
1996-08-23 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Ken Garlington @ 1996-08-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
I just received this; as far as I know, this is the final version which
was presented to the NRC group reviewing Ada policy. I don't have any
more information on the contents of this paper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AIA Position Statement on Ada
12 July 1996
For Presentation to the National Research Council
The AIA. The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is a trade
association that represents most of the aerospace companies in the
United States. These companies are manufacturers of commercial,
military, and business aircraft, helicopters, aircraft engines,
missiles, spacecraft, and related equipment and components.
The National Research Council Study of Ada within DOD. Earlier this
year, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the
National Research Council (NRC) formed a study group to review �the past
and present contexts for using Ada within the Department of Defense
(DOD).� The NRC study group invited AIA to provide an industry position
on Ada. This document, AIA Position Statement on Ada, was developed in
response to the NRC request. It includes AIA recommendations, which are
followed by a review of the basis for those recommendations.
AIA Recommendations
At a time when extraordinary steps are being taken to encourage
commercial solutions and large-scale reuse, program management on both
the government and industry sides should have more freedom to determine
what best meets the life-cycle cost objectives of the project. We
advise the DOD to change its computer language policy now and end the
exclusive mandate for Ada for all programs, including those for which
the government maintains the software.
The AIA believes that a decision regarding which computer language or
languages to use on a given DOD project is an implementation issue that
should be based on a trade study. The study, which should be conducted
within the context of a specific project or a specific family of
projects, should include considerations of performance-based
specifications, interoperability, reuse of an existing system (if any),
open systems, use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items, tool
environment quality, cost and availability of tools, configuration
management, and life-cycle considerations. Such a study should be part
of the requirements definition process; there should be no presumption
in favor of any particular language. The study could be conducted
either prior to contract award or after the contract has been awarded.
In either case, an integrated team including the developer (or potential
developers), the supporters, the maintainers, and the testers all should
advise on the language decision. If the study were conducted prior to
contract award, the study results could be included in the RFP. The
trade study should document the decision, the rationale, and the
decision process, and should be retained in the government program
office.
In a joint effort (lasting at most six months) DOD and industry should
develop guidance on computer language trade studies. An experienced,
high-level, joint government and industry team of �stakeholders� (that
is, parties who for many years have been in the business of developing,
acquiring, or supporting DOD systems) should be tasked to develop this
guidance. This team, which should contain both systems and software
expertise, should work to ensure that DOD life-cycle considerations are
acknowledged and satisfied. They should give consideration to how
certain kinds of systems may merit special consideration; e.g.,
safety/flight critical systems, or systems where the size of the
software exceeds a threshold. Other factors include whether software is
embedded, potential future modernizations, and interfaces with other
systems and software. The guidance should deal with the unfortunate
fact that some managers on both the government and industry side may
have insufficient knowledge of Ada capabilities; under pressure such
people might ignore life-cycle concerns, or might turn away from
essential up-front design analysis. AIA believes that life-cycle cost
studies and up-front design analysis should precede language selection.
AIA strongly supports the use of Ada in systems where its use makes both
engineering and economic sense. Our position that the exclusive mandate
for Ada should end is not an attack on the value of Ada. Indeed, we
believe that Ada no longer needs a mandate in part because of the proven
strengths of Ada 83 and the improvements that have been made in Ada 95.
AIA believes that adopting the recommendations presented herein is an
essential first step in moving toward a broad consensus position on
computer languages within the defense industrial community, in
appropriately responding to the thrust of the SECDEF memorandum
regarding performance specifications and commercial standards, and in
providing due consideration to reducing costs through the increased use
of commercial products and practices.
In summary:
� Change the current DOD policy and end the exclusive Ada mandate.
� On DOD programs use a trade study to support computer language
selections.
� To support this change of policy have a joint government and industry
team develop guidance for computer language trade studies.
� Require the team developing guidance to ensure that there is a focus
on life-cycle considerations in the trade study.
Basis for AIA Recommendations
The Importance of Software. Software is a critical and increasingly
significant factor in the systems and subsystems that are created by our
member companies. In many cases the software represents the integration
technology for the system or subsystem as a whole. For long-life weapon
systems a software language is a long-enduring element.
The Merits of Ada. The implementation of the Ada programming language
within the DOD has been a significant factor in the way AIA companies
deal with issues of large-scale software development and systems
integration. Ada 83 was designed to support sound software engineering,
especially in large systems with a long life-cycle; noteworthy features
of ADA 83 include strong typing and an inherent reliability based on
extensive error detection at both compile-time and run-time. Ada 95
continues that tradition with increased support for potential software
reuse and for object-oriented programming, and increased flexibility for
real-time systems programming. Additionally, Ada has an ability that is
unique among high order languages (HOL) to be a design representation
language; and it has been shown that in large systems the defect rate
for Ada is significantly less than that for the more popular commercial
HOLs. We make these observations not to �damn with faint praise;�
rather we wish to emphasize that Ada has significant technical merits.
The Limited Acceptance of Ada. The acceptance of Ada has not been as
widespread as its proponents have wished of it. In the first place, Ada
has only limited acceptance in the US commercial world. There are many
languages with a wider commercial acceptance than Ada, such as Basic, C,
COBOL, and FORTRAN; and there are newer languages that are gaining in
commercial popularity, such as C++ and Java. In addition, Ada has some
but only limited acceptance in the US academic world. Most researchers
in universities create small computer programs for which Ada has fewer
advantages. According to recent data from the DOD Ada Joint Program
Office (AJPO), over 20% of colleges and universities offer courses on
Ada. Many Ada proponents believe that this percentage would be greater
but for the lack of inexpensive Ada compilers and tools. It remains to
be seen whether the new availability of free Ada 95 compilers for a wide
variety of platforms (including personal computers) and other promotion
efforts will result in a greater use of Ada in the academic world and in
commerce. At the present time Ada continues to be encumbered by poor
exposure in the US commercial world.
Ada and Development Costs. Because of these acceptance issues, the
development costs (as contrasted with life-cycle costs) associated with
Ada become an issue that may impact competitiveness. There is an
ongoing cost to industry and to government software development groups
for Ada training, since in many areas of the country the schools do not
provide adequate courses. The cost of industrial-strength Ada language
compilers and other support tools is high relative to other languages
that have a broader commercial base. Availability issues may drive up
development costs, also. The use of commercial hardware platforms for
embedded systems is increasing, and the frequency of performance
enhancements in those platforms for both host and target systems has
increased. At the same time, because of the support for a commercial
language environment by commercial hardware vendors, Ada support often
lags. This may result in less use of Ada, as commercial technology
development supplants customized development.
AIA Experiences with Ada Vary. AIA member companies have experienced a
wide range of results from the use of Ada 83. All have greatly
benefited from the software engineering support features of Ada,
including reduced error rates. Many can cite projects in which Ada has
had a substantial positive impact, overall. Of special note in this
regard are large, highly visible projects such as F-22, BSY-2, Boeing
777, and Peace Shield. However, some have suffered because Ada support
tools were not robust nor available when needed, or because Ada
presented interface difficulties in heterogeneous environments.
The Ada Mandate and Performance Standards. Current policy in DOD on
computer languages consists of an exclusive mandate for the use of Ada
across the DOD. Two years ago, on June 29, 1994, a SECDEF Memorandum,
�Specifications and Standards - a New Way of Doing Business,� was
issued. This memorandum directs the use of performance standards, more
reliance on commercial standards as a priority and greater dependence on
the commercial industrial base. On August 26, 1994, E. Paige and N.
Longuemare issued a follow-on memorandum concerning the use of Ada,
reiterating the DOD commitment to Ada, and noting that the Ada mandate
does not conflict with the SECDEF Memorandum. Most recently this was
reiterated in the new 5000 series guidance. Throughout DOD there is a
need for more affordable weapon systems that use open architecture
approaches to combat life-cycle cost growth during modernization. In
this context AIA believes that there still are open issues regarding Ada
software and the desire to integrate the defense and commercial
industrial base.
Acquisition Reform and Ada. The DOD is moving toward permitting an
increased reliance on commercial products, practices, and processes.
Recently, acquisition reform initiatives have supported this trend;
there is a general movement toward having government specifications
focus on performance requirements - �what� is required from a system, as
opposed to �how� to design or implement the system. AIA supports these
reforms and believes that usually the selection of a programming
language is an implementation detail rather than a performance
requirement. As such the selection of a computer language should be
based on both business judgment and engineering judgment prior to or
during development, with no initial presumption in favor of any specific
choice. Frequently the choice has clear life-cycle implications, and so
should be made with input from the support and maintenance organizations
(if they are different from the developers).
Limiting the Number of Programming Languages. AIA recognizes that DOD
has an interest in not having to support systems in hundreds of
different programming languages. In the 1970s and 1980s it may have
seemed necessary to mandate a single language to force a reduction in
support costs. In the 1990s and beyond, AIA believes that the
commercial marketplace will of its own accord drive toward a relatively
small number of commercially viable languages. Going from hundreds of
languages to several is virtually the same as going from hundreds to
one, in terms of the benefit to the DOD. In addition, we have many
reports that the current waiver process, which is used in the attempt to
enforce the single language policy, is costly and disruptive; a more
open policy would reduce the cost and disruption.
Life-Cycle Cost Issues. Certainly the DOD has an interest in
encouraging its acquisition program managers to promote engineering
solutions that address life-cycle issues. These issues include
life-cycle cost, supportability, maintainability, and adaptability, all
of which were considerations in the design of Ada. However, technology
changes with time, and an equally important life-cycle consideration is
the level of support for a language during that life-cycle. In the US,
Ada continues to be primarily a niche language for the DOD. AIA
believes that there is nothing wrong with efforts to promote Ada, to
make Ada technology more easily available to faculty and students as
well as to create a wider commercial base for Ada. Only with wider
commercial acceptance of Ada and its support and promotion by a major
vendor (e.g., IBM, HP), is it likely that all the anticipated life-cycle
savings will be achieved. Ada should be maintained for systems when it
makes business and technical sense. At the same time we should provide
for a transition to newer technologies that may have a greater impact on
reducing life-cycle costs.
Fears from Eliminating and Fears from Keeping the Mandate. Within both
industry and government, there are some who believe that the exclusive
mandate for Ada is essential if Ada is to build on its successes to date
and continue to succeed in the future. Such proponents may equate
ending the exclusive mandate with �killing� Ada. They fear that without
such a mandate vendors may lessen their support for Ada products; also,
they fear that without the mandate projects would not be forced to
address software life-cycle cost issues. Such concerns are not
groundless; it is hard to predict the future with total confidence.
However, we believe that the �doomsayers� are wrong. Ada is too good a
language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it
die. AIA member companies have made substantial investments in Ada
technology, and have a clear appreciation of its value. In the future
as in the past, with or without a mandate, Ada will be a strong
contender for large real-time systems that require ongoing maintenance
and support (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program). It may be a
strong contender for other kinds of systems, as well. The language has
proven its value; after the recent improvements in Ada 95, the language
is ready to stand on its own. AIA has a concern that to continue the
exclusive mandate for Ada could inhibit the use of commercial best
practices, prevent dual-use applications, harm American competitiveness,
and inhibit life-cycle benefits that could result from the judicious
adoption of commercial products and practices.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* AIA Position on Ada
@ 1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Ken Garlington @ 1996-08-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
I just received this; as far as I know, this is the final version which
was presented to the NRC group reviewing Ada policy. I don't have any
more information on the contents of this paper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AIA Position Statement on Ada
12 July 1996
For Presentation to the National Research Council
The AIA. The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is a trade
association that represents most of the aerospace companies in the
United States. These companies are manufacturers of commercial,
military, and business aircraft, helicopters, aircraft engines,
missiles, spacecraft, and related equipment and components.
The National Research Council Study of Ada within DOD. Earlier this
year, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the
National Research Council (NRC) formed a study group to review �the past
and present contexts for using Ada within the Department of Defense
(DOD).� The NRC study group invited AIA to provide an industry position
on Ada. This document, AIA Position Statement on Ada, was developed in
response to the NRC request. It includes AIA recommendations, which are
followed by a review of the basis for those recommendations.
AIA Recommendations
At a time when extraordinary steps are being taken to encourage
commercial solutions and large-scale reuse, program management on both
the government and industry sides should have more freedom to determine
what best meets the life-cycle cost objectives of the project. We
advise the DOD to change its computer language policy now and end the
exclusive mandate for Ada for all programs, including those for which
the government maintains the software.
The AIA believes that a decision regarding which computer language or
languages to use on a given DOD project is an implementation issue that
should be based on a trade study. The study, which should be conducted
within the context of a specific project or a specific family of
projects, should include considerations of performance-based
specifications, interoperability, reuse of an existing system (if any),
open systems, use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items, tool
environment quality, cost and availability of tools, configuration
management, and life-cycle considerations. Such a study should be part
of the requirements definition process; there should be no presumption
in favor of any particular language. The study could be conducted
either prior to contract award or after the contract has been awarded.
In either case, an integrated team including the developer (or potential
developers), the supporters, the maintainers, and the testers all should
advise on the language decision. If the study were conducted prior to
contract award, the study results could be included in the RFP. The
trade study should document the decision, the rationale, and the
decision process, and should be retained in the government program
office.
In a joint effort (lasting at most six months) DOD and industry should
develop guidance on computer language trade studies. An experienced,
high-level, joint government and industry team of �stakeholders� (that
is, parties who for many years have been in the business of developing,
acquiring, or supporting DOD systems) should be tasked to develop this
guidance. This team, which should contain both systems and software
expertise, should work to ensure that DOD life-cycle considerations are
acknowledged and satisfied. They should give consideration to how
certain kinds of systems may merit special consideration; e.g.,
safety/flight critical systems, or systems where the size of the
software exceeds a threshold. Other factors include whether software is
embedded, potential future modernizations, and interfaces with other
systems and software. The guidance should deal with the unfortunate
fact that some managers on both the government and industry side may
have insufficient knowledge of Ada capabilities; under pressure such
people might ignore life-cycle concerns, or might turn away from
essential up-front design analysis. AIA believes that life-cycle cost
studies and up-front design analysis should precede language selection.
AIA strongly supports the use of Ada in systems where its use makes both
engineering and economic sense. Our position that the exclusive mandate
for Ada should end is not an attack on the value of Ada. Indeed, we
believe that Ada no longer needs a mandate in part because of the proven
strengths of Ada 83 and the improvements that have been made in Ada 95.
AIA believes that adopting the recommendations presented herein is an
essential first step in moving toward a broad consensus position on
computer languages within the defense industrial community, in
appropriately responding to the thrust of the SECDEF memorandum
regarding performance specifications and commercial standards, and in
providing due consideration to reducing costs through the increased use
of commercial products and practices.
In summary:
� Change the current DOD policy and end the exclusive Ada mandate.
� On DOD programs use a trade study to support computer language
selections.
� To support this change of policy have a joint government and industry
team develop guidance for computer language trade studies.
� Require the team developing guidance to ensure that there is a focus
on life-cycle considerations in the trade study.
Basis for AIA Recommendations
The Importance of Software. Software is a critical and increasingly
significant factor in the systems and subsystems that are created by our
member companies. In many cases the software represents the integration
technology for the system or subsystem as a whole. For long-life weapon
systems a software language is a long-enduring element.
The Merits of Ada. The implementation of the Ada programming language
within the DOD has been a significant factor in the way AIA companies
deal with issues of large-scale software development and systems
integration. Ada 83 was designed to support sound software engineering,
especially in large systems with a long life-cycle; noteworthy features
of ADA 83 include strong typing and an inherent reliability based on
extensive error detection at both compile-time and run-time. Ada 95
continues that tradition with increased support for potential software
reuse and for object-oriented programming, and increased flexibility for
real-time systems programming. Additionally, Ada has an ability that is
unique among high order languages (HOL) to be a design representation
language; and it has been shown that in large systems the defect rate
for Ada is significantly less than that for the more popular commercial
HOLs. We make these observations not to �damn with faint praise;�
rather we wish to emphasize that Ada has significant technical merits.
The Limited Acceptance of Ada. The acceptance of Ada has not been as
widespread as its proponents have wished of it. In the first place, Ada
has only limited acceptance in the US commercial world. There are many
languages with a wider commercial acceptance than Ada, such as Basic, C,
COBOL, and FORTRAN; and there are newer languages that are gaining in
commercial popularity, such as C++ and Java. In addition, Ada has some
but only limited acceptance in the US academic world. Most researchers
in universities create small computer programs for which Ada has fewer
advantages. According to recent data from the DOD Ada Joint Program
Office (AJPO), over 20% of colleges and universities offer courses on
Ada. Many Ada proponents believe that this percentage would be greater
but for the lack of inexpensive Ada compilers and tools. It remains to
be seen whether the new availability of free Ada 95 compilers for a wide
variety of platforms (including personal computers) and other promotion
efforts will result in a greater use of Ada in the academic world and in
commerce. At the present time Ada continues to be encumbered by poor
exposure in the US commercial world.
Ada and Development Costs. Because of these acceptance issues, the
development costs (as contrasted with life-cycle costs) associated with
Ada become an issue that may impact competitiveness. There is an
ongoing cost to industry and to government software development groups
for Ada training, since in many areas of the country the schools do not
provide adequate courses. The cost of industrial-strength Ada language
compilers and other support tools is high relative to other languages
that have a broader commercial base. Availability issues may drive up
development costs, also. The use of commercial hardware platforms for
embedded systems is increasing, and the frequency of performance
enhancements in those platforms for both host and target systems has
increased. At the same time, because of the support for a commercial
language environment by commercial hardware vendors, Ada support often
lags. This may result in less use of Ada, as commercial technology
development supplants customized development.
AIA Experiences with Ada Vary. AIA member companies have experienced a
wide range of results from the use of Ada 83. All have greatly
benefited from the software engineering support features of Ada,
including reduced error rates. Many can cite projects in which Ada has
had a substantial positive impact, overall. Of special note in this
regard are large, highly visible projects such as F-22, BSY-2, Boeing
777, and Peace Shield. However, some have suffered because Ada support
tools were not robust nor available when needed, or because Ada
presented interface difficulties in heterogeneous environments.
The Ada Mandate and Performance Standards. Current policy in DOD on
computer languages consists of an exclusive mandate for the use of Ada
across the DOD. Two years ago, on June 29, 1994, a SECDEF Memorandum,
�Specifications and Standards - a New Way of Doing Business,� was
issued. This memorandum directs the use of performance standards, more
reliance on commercial standards as a priority and greater dependence on
the commercial industrial base. On August 26, 1994, E. Paige and N.
Longuemare issued a follow-on memorandum concerning the use of Ada,
reiterating the DOD commitment to Ada, and noting that the Ada mandate
does not conflict with the SECDEF Memorandum. Most recently this was
reiterated in the new 5000 series guidance. Throughout DOD there is a
need for more affordable weapon systems that use open architecture
approaches to combat life-cycle cost growth during modernization. In
this context AIA believes that there still are open issues regarding Ada
software and the desire to integrate the defense and commercial
industrial base.
Acquisition Reform and Ada. The DOD is moving toward permitting an
increased reliance on commercial products, practices, and processes.
Recently, acquisition reform initiatives have supported this trend;
there is a general movement toward having government specifications
focus on performance requirements - �what� is required from a system, as
opposed to �how� to design or implement the system. AIA supports these
reforms and believes that usually the selection of a programming
language is an implementation detail rather than a performance
requirement. As such the selection of a computer language should be
based on both business judgment and engineering judgment prior to or
during development, with no initial presumption in favor of any specific
choice. Frequently the choice has clear life-cycle implications, and so
should be made with input from the support and maintenance organizations
(if they are different from the developers).
Limiting the Number of Programming Languages. AIA recognizes that DOD
has an interest in not having to support systems in hundreds of
different programming languages. In the 1970s and 1980s it may have
seemed necessary to mandate a single language to force a reduction in
support costs. In the 1990s and beyond, AIA believes that the
commercial marketplace will of its own accord drive toward a relatively
small number of commercially viable languages. Going from hundreds of
languages to several is virtually the same as going from hundreds to
one, in terms of the benefit to the DOD. In addition, we have many
reports that the current waiver process, which is used in the attempt to
enforce the single language policy, is costly and disruptive; a more
open policy would reduce the cost and disruption.
Life-Cycle Cost Issues. Certainly the DOD has an interest in
encouraging its acquisition program managers to promote engineering
solutions that address life-cycle issues. These issues include
life-cycle cost, supportability, maintainability, and adaptability, all
of which were considerations in the design of Ada. However, technology
changes with time, and an equally important life-cycle consideration is
the level of support for a language during that life-cycle. In the US,
Ada continues to be primarily a niche language for the DOD. AIA
believes that there is nothing wrong with efforts to promote Ada, to
make Ada technology more easily available to faculty and students as
well as to create a wider commercial base for Ada. Only with wider
commercial acceptance of Ada and its support and promotion by a major
vendor (e.g., IBM, HP), is it likely that all the anticipated life-cycle
savings will be achieved. Ada should be maintained for systems when it
makes business and technical sense. At the same time we should provide
for a transition to newer technologies that may have a greater impact on
reducing life-cycle costs.
Fears from Eliminating and Fears from Keeping the Mandate. Within both
industry and government, there are some who believe that the exclusive
mandate for Ada is essential if Ada is to build on its successes to date
and continue to succeed in the future. Such proponents may equate
ending the exclusive mandate with �killing� Ada. They fear that without
such a mandate vendors may lessen their support for Ada products; also,
they fear that without the mandate projects would not be forced to
address software life-cycle cost issues. Such concerns are not
groundless; it is hard to predict the future with total confidence.
However, we believe that the �doomsayers� are wrong. Ada is too good a
language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it
die. AIA member companies have made substantial investments in Ada
technology, and have a clear appreciation of its value. In the future
as in the past, with or without a mandate, Ada will be a strong
contender for large real-time systems that require ongoing maintenance
and support (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program). It may be a
strong contender for other kinds of systems, as well. The language has
proven its value; after the recent improvements in Ada 95, the language
is ready to stand on its own. AIA has a concern that to continue the
exclusive mandate for Ada could inhibit the use of commercial best
practices, prevent dual-use applications, harm American competitiveness,
and inhibit life-cycle benefits that could result from the judicious
adoption of commercial products and practices.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
@ 1996-08-23 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman
1996-08-23 0:00 ` nasser
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert B. Love
0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Byron B. Kauffman @ 1996-08-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ken Garlington wrote:
>
> I just received this; as far as I know, this is the final version which
> was presented to the NRC group reviewing Ada policy. I don't have any
> more information on the contents of this paper.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AIA Position Statement on Ada
>
> 12 July 1996
>
> For Presentation to the National Research Council
>
snip...
> The Ada Mandate and Performance Standards. Current policy in DOD on
> computer languages consists of an exclusive mandate for the use of Ada
> across the DOD. Two years ago, on June 29, 1994, a SECDEF Memorandum,
> �Specifications and Standards - a New Way of Doing Business,� was
> issued. This memorandum directs the use of performance standards, more
> reliance on commercial standards as a priority and greater dependence on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the commercial industrial base.
more snipping...
Can anyone name a 'commercial standard' for software development? Should we use
Microsoft's example of how commercial software is developed? I guess I shouldn't be
suprised, given our company's 'official' stand, but it still bugs me...
But on the brighter side, think of the money the company will be saving now by not having
to spend all those hours coming up with excuses to justify an Ada waiver!!!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
@ 1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-26 0:00 ` bohn
1996-08-27 0:00 ` Stephen M O'Shaughnessy
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Alan Brain @ 1996-08-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:
>However, we believe that the =B3doomsayers=B2 are wrong. Ada is too good a
>language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it
>die.
Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable and
costly VHS obsolete.
(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on maintenance. I
also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got flooded,
and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman
1996-08-23 0:00 ` nasser
@ 1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert B. Love
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Robert B. Love @ 1996-08-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: KauffmanBB
In <321E0811.B9D@lmtas.lmco.com> "Byron B. Kauffman" wrote:
> But on the brighter side, think of the money the company will be
saving now
> by not having to spend all those hours coming up with excuses to
justify an
> Ada waiver!!!
Yeah, but what about a trade study to determine which language to use?
How many manhours will this be? Or will it just be a xerox of the last
trade study that concluded what the authors want?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Love, rlove@neosoft.com (local) MIME & NeXT Mail OK
rlove@raptor.rmnug.org (permanent) PGP key available
----------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 ` nasser
@ 1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-08-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"If DOD will not be using Ada, who will ?"
Well the predicate is clearly false. Even if DoD did not use Ada for
one new project (which in fact is also false, Ada will be used for
many new projects), it has huge amounts of Ada code that will be
maintained for a long time (Ada is the most widely used programming
language in DoD weapons systems, and the second most widely used
langauge (after COBOL) for information systems.
YOu cannot expect an agent to be aware of all the commercial companies
using Ada. The number is probably not large, but it is much larger than
12 (almost anyone familair with the Ada scene can name more than 12
companies using Ada for non-defence work from their own knowledge!)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
@ 1996-08-24 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 @ 1996-08-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Byron B. Kauffman" <KauffmanBB@LMTAS.LMCO.COM> writes:
>Can anyone name a 'commercial standard' for software development? Should we use
>Microsoft's example of how commercial software is developed? I guess I
>shouldn't be
>suprised, given our company's 'official' stand, but it still bugs me...
>
I believe there are some IEEE "standards" that relate to software
development (I presume you're thinking of something that parallels
Mil-Std-2167a?) But remember that a 'commercial standard' could
mean something as simple as the documented development practices
for your company. (All that ISO-9000, SEI-CMM type of stuff.)
>But on the brighter side, think of the money the company will be saving now by
>not having
>to spend all those hours coming up with excuses to justify an Ada waiver!!!
>
I think it is truly a disgrace to see companies fight this thing.
(STILL!) Ada has all the capabilities needed to write just about
any kind of software you like and there are enough good quality
compilers out there which are equal to or better than compilers
for any other language. If the energy had been spent on building
an "Ada Infrastructure" within a business (As we here at Pratt did
years ago) instead of being spent on excuse-making and dodging the
expressed desires of the customer, there would be no cause to
argue that "Ada isn't as good as C because there's more C stuff
out there..."
BTW: The argument "there's more C stuff out there..." is the only
semi-plausable business/engineering reason to think that "C is
better than Ada...", in my not-so-humble opinion. In every other
respect Ada is as good as or better than C and I have never heard
any convincing engineering reason to select C over Ada.
But then, this seems to be the way of things in a technological
society. Beta was better than VHS - so VHS wins. VMS was better
than UNIX, so UNIX wins. Macintosh was better than IBM-PC, so
IBM-PC wins... etc. etc. etc.
MDC
Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997
M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
"That which belongs to another."
-- Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink.
===============================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-24 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
@ 1996-08-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1996-08-27 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Brian Rogoff @ 1996-08-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93" <condicma@PWFL.COM> writes:
BTW: The argument "there's more C stuff out there..." is the only
semi-plausable business/engineering reason to think that "C is
better than Ada...", in my not-so-humble opinion. In every other
respect Ada is as good as or better than C and I have never heard
any convincing engineering reason to select C over Ada.
Well, that little chestnut ("There's more C stuff out there...") can be
expanded quite a bit
(1) There is a larger existing base of C code than Ada code
(2) There are more tools for C than for Ada
(3) There are more programmers familiar with C than with Ada
etc.
No need to reply that a lot of this C code is unusable, that the tools exist
to correct deficiencies absent in Ada 95, etc. I agree. IMO, the way to fight
this battle is to write lots of Ada code that is better than the C, to build
Ada tools that do more for Ada than Purify and co. do for C (how about
Larch/Ada-95 and a free GC for Ada 95?), and to get more people looking at
Ada as a C alternative.
But then, this seems to be the way of things in a technological
society. Beta was better than VHS - so VHS wins. VMS was better
than UNIX, so UNIX wins. Macintosh was better than IBM-PC, so
IBM-PC wins... etc. etc. etc.
I believe that what is going on is an example of positive feedback in a
control system. Once a technology is a bit more popular than a competing
technology, its popularity becomes the reason that people choose it over its
competitors. Hence time to market is usually more important than quality,
and the type of market "conquered" (say PC vs workstation) is also
important. Also, arguments like "VMS was better than UNIX" are plain wrong.
The Symbolics Lisp machine environment circa 1985 was arguably better than
any OS of the time, yet it didn't run on any other hardware. UNIX is
portable, VMS isn't. Too fucking bad for VMS and Symbolics. Similar arguments
can be made for the Mac (expensive, closed, yet functional and elegant).
I first read the "positive feedback" argument in an old (late 1980s, early
1990s) Scientific American article titled "Positive Feedback in Economic
Systems" or something like that. I don't believe that this argument applies
perfectly to programming language acceptance however. Note that COBOL,
Fortran, Lisp, and PL/I :-) still have active user communities.
-- Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
@ 1996-08-25 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger
[not found] ` <01bb9300$3af46980$4a6700cf@ljelmore.montana>
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-08-28 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
3 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Bob Kitzberger @ 1996-08-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
: ... Frequently the choice has clear life-cycle implications, and so
: should be made with input from the support and maintenance organizations
: (if they are different from the developers).
Do the support/maintenance organizations really have a say in this?
In my very limited experience on this topic, they seemed to be
involved when systems were delivered.
---
I suspect there may be a bit too much faith in the free market's
ability to choose the best technologies. Has anyone seen the
incredible Ordnance Survey maps in the UK? Care to compare those
to the commercial variety in the US? Would the US DoD prefer
Ordnance Survey-quality maps or commercial US maps?
[Not speaking for RSC, etc.]
--
Bob Kitzberger Rational Software Corporation rlk@rational.com
http://www.rational.com http://www.rational.com/pst/products/testmate.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
@ 1996-08-26 0:00 ` bohn
1996-08-29 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-27 0:00 ` Stephen M O'Shaughnessy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: bohn @ 1996-08-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
> >However, we believe that the doomsayers are wrong. Ada is too good a
> >language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it die.
>
> Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable
> and costly VHS obsolete.
> (I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on
> maintenance. I also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after
> the house got flooded, and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works
> like new.)
Big deal. I've had one VHS for the last 11 years and serviced it once. If
you paid as much for you VHS recorders as you did for that Beta you might
you might have had one made to last.
Also, it's pretty stupid to compare recorders to a programming language.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
@ 1996-08-26 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 @ 1996-08-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Brian Rogoff <rogoff@SCCM.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>Well, that little chestnut ("There's more C stuff out there...") can be
>expanded quite a bit
>
>(1) There is a larger existing base of C code than Ada code
>(2) There are more tools for C than for Ada
>(3) There are more programmers familiar with C than with Ada
>etc.
>
No dispute with this. There are lots of expansions of my loosely
used term: "stuff" and it clearly has to include things like
experienced personnel, infrastructure, etc.
>I believe that what is going on is an example of positive feedback in a
>control system. Once a technology is a bit more popular than a competing
>technology, its popularity becomes the reason that people choose it over its
>competitors. Hence time to market is usually more important than quality,
>
I like the "positive feedback" analogy - I think it explains a
lot. I think the thing to remember is that this is not
necessarily a bad thing. Businesses exist to make money, not
promote a specific technology. Hence when the costs of a
technology come down because of volume, there's less interest in
it's technical merit and more in it's ability to get the job out
the door at the minimal cost. In other words: Who cares if it
makes the engineers "happy" or not? Does it make the stockholders
money?
>important. Also, arguments like "VMS was better than UNIX" are plain wrong.
>The Symbolics Lisp machine environment circa 1985 was arguably better than
>any OS of the time, yet it didn't run on any other hardware. UNIX is
>portable, VMS isn't. Too fucking bad for VMS and Symbolics. Similar arguments
>can be made for the Mac (expensive, closed, yet functional and elegant)
>
I'll disagree on this point: VMS is a better OS than UNIX and
that's a fact. The Symbolics Lisp machine may have been better
than VMS, but it doesn't change my original statement. The fact
that VMS didn't catch on as well as UNIX is due to a lot of
factors, not the least of which is that DEC made it so
proprietary. But it still illustrates my point about how
technological superiority isn't always (or often) necessary to
becoming the dominant technology.
BTW: If any of you guys at DEC, IBM, Apple, et alia, are
listening, now's the time to PAY ATTENTION: _EVERY_ time you've
decided to lock up your hardware or software as "Proprietary" and
"Closed" with the hopes of "Cornering The Market", you eventually
_LOOSE_!!! (You get 100% of an ever shrinking pie). Whenever you
guys build a system that's "Open" so that other companies or
individuals can play in the same game, you _WIN_!!! (You get X% of
an ever expanding pie.) Does it take a rocket scientist to figure
it out? (And if it did, well... we just so happen to have one
handy. ;-)
MDC
Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997
M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
"That which belongs to another."
-- Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink.
===============================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger
@ 1996-08-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
1996-08-28 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
3 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dale Stanbrough @ 1996-08-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on
maintenance. I
also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got
flooded,
and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)
Ah.. So you were the one in that little corner of the video store! :-)
Dale
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
@ 1996-08-26 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
1996-08-27 0:00 ` nasser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Carl Bowman @ 1996-08-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <4vrgvb$if7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on
>maintenance. I
> also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got
>flooded,
> and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)
>
>
>Ah.. So you were the one in that little corner of the video store! :-)
>
>Dale
No, that was me! I still have 4 Beta recorders which I use constantly.
- Carl Bowman
bowmanc@mnsinc.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
[not found] ` <01bb9300$3af46980$4a6700cf@ljelmore.montana>
@ 1996-08-26 0:00 ` Alan Brain
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Alan Brain @ 1996-08-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>I don't know the background of the British Ordnance Survey maps, but it
>sounds as though they are made for (and possibly by) the British military.
>I take it these maps are easily available to the general public? Are other
>commercial maps (of presumably lower detail and quality) available to the
>British public, and if so, how many more are sold than Ordnance Survey
>maps?
The Ordnance Survey was commissioned as a set of Military Maps when it was
discovered that had Napoleon invaded, there were no good maps for the British
forces.
It's about as military as Ada, ie started out that way, but now the standard for the
UK whenever you want any decent topographic map.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-26 0:00 ` bohn
@ 1996-08-27 0:00 ` Stephen M O'Shaughnessy
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Stephen M O'Shaughnessy @ 1996-08-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <321f0f6d.0@red.interact.net.au>, aebrain@dynamite.com.au says...
>
>Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:
>
>>However, we believe that the =B3doomsayers=B2 are wrong. Ada is too good a
>>language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it
>>die.
>
>Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable
and
>costly VHS obsolete.
>
>(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on
maintenance. I
>also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got
flooded,
>and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)
>
>
>
Beta died because Sony would not license the format. Ada is free and will
live for ever.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
@ 1996-08-27 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1996-08-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <ROGOFF.96Aug25115537@sccm.Stanford.EDU> rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff) writes:
> I believe that what is going on is an example of positive feedback
> in a control system. Once a technology is a bit more popular than
> a competing technology, its popularity becomes the reason that
> people choose it over its competitors. Hence time to market is
> usually more important than quality, and the type of market
> "conquered" (say PC vs workstation) is also important... I first
> read the "positive feedback" argument in an old (late 1980s, early
> 1990s) Scientific American article titled "Positive Feedback in
> Economic Systems" or something like that. I don't believe that
> this argument applies perfectly to programming language acceptance
> however. Note that COBOL, Fortran, Lisp, and PL/I :-) still have
> active user communities.
The positive feedback argument does apply to programming
languages, but there are two other factors which confound it. First,
people are the slowest reacting component of the software system. C
dominated the educational system in the eighties, and we are seeing
the effect of that now. (Before that FORTRAN, then Pascal, dominated.
Yes, yes, Pascal is still and has been the "toy" language of choice in
CS1, but most CS and engineering programs qucikly shifted to C for
"real" work. Now Ada is rising rapidly, and has the advantage that
you can use it both for CS1 and "real" projects.)
The second confounding factor is that there is a critical mass
effect. Once you pass a certain point, the size of the overall market
doesn't increase the advantages that a language has. At a lower level
the market fragments. Once usage and teaching of a language achieves
critical mass, then the "battle" goes almost house-to-house in
application domains. Right now there are "home" territories
controlled by C, Ada, 4GLs, Fortran, Visual Basic, COBOL, Lisp,
Smalltalk, and SQL.
One of the problems that the C++ community views with alarm is
that in the one territory they thought they owned, C++ is being
challenged by Java. I don't expect either to survive the battle, but
maybe I'm an optimist. ;-) Java byte code on the other hand will
survive and prosper. I just went to a presentation last week on a 4GL
product, where they demonstrated their Java byte code targeted
compiler.
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
@ 1996-08-27 0:00 ` nasser
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: nasser @ 1996-08-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
How did a discussion about AIA position on Ada become one about
flooding, video stores and VHS vs. Betamax ?
I just love newsgroups !
:)
Nasser
--
Nasser Abbasi. C/C++/Ada Solaris. Perkin Elmer - Applied BioSystem division.
email: nasser@apldbio.com MSEE, MSCS, MSCE, Fide chess master (FM).
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." Bill Gates, 1981
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication." Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
@ 1996-08-28 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Richard Riehle @ 1996-08-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
From: Richard Riehle
Subject: AIA Position on Ada
The AIA position is long on text and short on insight. There is no
good reason for the DoD to abandon its current Ada policy. It is
reminiscent of "sound and fury" but adds up to not much in substance.
1) The single-language policy along with a set of properly administered
waiver procedures is still correct.
2) No one has yet made the case, nor can they make the case, that some
class of software problems cannot be solved in Ada. In fact, Ada
has now been used successfully for nearly every kind of application,
on nearly every operating system and and hardware platform in
existence.
3) The burden of proof should be on those who insist Ada cannot do the
job, not the other way around.
4) This is exactly the wrong time to abandon Ada policy. With the
increasing disaffection with C++ and no other serious language
(except, perhaps Eiffel) coming close to Ada, why would the DoD
take such a major risk.
5) "sound and fury," indeed!
Richard Riehle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
@ 1996-08-29 0:00 Simon Johnston
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Simon Johnston @ 1996-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ordnance survey maps are about the only ones available apart from some =
tourist maps. The quality of the maps and the availability of different =
scales (I have a large scale driving map of the UK, a selection of =
medium scale maps of areas I visit frequently and a couple of finer maps =
of places I like to go walking) has meant that rivals have not got a =
foothold in the market place.
with StandardDisclaimer; use StandardDisclaimer;
package Sig is
--,----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---.
--|Simon K. Johnston - Development Engineer (C++/Ada95) |ICL Retail =
Systems |
--|-----------------------------------------------------|3/4 Willoughby =
Road|
--|Unix Mail: skj@acm.org |Bracknell =
|
--|Telephone: +44 (0)1344 476320 Fax: +44 (0)1344 476302|Berkshire =
|
--|Internal : 7261 6320 OP Mail: S.K.Johnston@BRA0801 |RG12 8TJ =
|
--|WWW URL : http://www.acm.org/~skj/ |United Kingdom =
|
--`----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---'
end Sig;
----------
From: Larry J. Elmore[SMTP:ljelmore@MONTANA.CAMPUS.MCI.NET]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 1996 3:35 AM
To: INFO-ADA@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU
Subject: Re: AIA Position on Ada
Bob Kitzberger <rlk@rational.com> wrote in article
<4vq1n2$9o1@rational.rational.com>...
> I suspect there may be a bit too much faith in the free market's
> ability to choose the best technologies. Has anyone seen the
> incredible Ordnance Survey maps in the UK? Care to compare those
> to the commercial variety in the US? Would the US DoD prefer
> Ordnance Survey-quality maps or commercial US maps?
I don't know the background of the British Ordnance Survey maps, but it
sounds as though they are made for (and possibly by) the British =
military.
I take it these maps are easily available to the general public? Are =
other
commercial maps (of presumably lower detail and quality) available to =
the
British public, and if so, how many more are sold than Ordnance Survey
maps?
Commercial maps are made for commercial purposes, and no extra expense =
is
going to be made providing higher levels of detail and quality than is
necessary to satisfy the majority of customers. Those that need better =
must
pay for it. The military has great need of the best maps possible. =
Whether
they get them through their own mapping service, or another government
agency dedicated to that task, or contract with a private company, they
will end up paying whatever price is necessary.
For the vast majority of us, that kind of detail and accuracy are just
plain unnecessary, so we're not about to pay for it. Why should we? So
mass-market commercial mapmakers provide us with maps that are 'good
enough' and no more expensive than necessary.
Mapmaking is a proper domain of government, though, because it is
intimately related to national defense. Unless I'm mistaken, commercial
mapmakers depend upon government source maps, anyway, don't they?
Larry J. Elmore
ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net
"Anyone who isn't a socialist by the age of twenty doesn't have a heart.
Anyone who isn't a conservative by the age of forty doesn't have a =
brain."
-- Winston Churchill
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-26 0:00 ` bohn
@ 1996-08-29 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-29 0:00 ` David Weller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Alan Brain @ 1996-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
bohn@rational.com wrote:
>
> > >However, we believe that the doomsayers are wrong. Ada is too good a
> > >language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it die.
> >
> > Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable
> > and costly VHS obsolete.
---->8------
> Also, it's pretty stupid to compare recorders to a programming language.
Wouldn't be the first time I've done something Thick, won't be the last.
But disagree: a reasonable analogy, showing that superior marketing, or
even
just availability of more titles sooner, has, in the past, beaten a
superior
technical solution. The situation vis-a-vis Ada should be obvious to any
Rational person.
---------------------- <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM By pulling
---------------------- o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo Maerklin
Wagons
In 1/220
Scale
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: AIA Position on Ada
1996-08-29 0:00 ` Alan Brain
@ 1996-08-29 0:00 ` David Weller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: David Weller @ 1996-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <32266B97.3C8F@dynamite.com.au>,
Alan Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>But disagree: a reasonable analogy, showing that superior marketing, or
>even
>just availability of more titles sooner, has, in the past, beaten a
>superior
>technical solution.
I seem to remember the biggest driving factor with VHS was the
appearance of the 6 hour mode. This made it possible to put 3 2-hour
movies on a single tape, which at that time were expensive (and Beta
tapes, which could only store 4.5 hours at the most, cost a little
more). This was pushed heavily by salespeople as I recall, because
consumers wanted to squeeze everything they could out of their dollar
(including the fact that, illegal or otherwise, buying recorded movies
back then was prohibitively expensive, and the ability to record 3
movies onto one tape was quite attractive as a storage device)
>The situation vis-a-vis Ada should be obvious to any
>Rational person.
Oh, sure, leave the other Ada compiler companies out of it! :-)
--
Visit the Ada 95 Booch Components Homepage: www.ocsystems.com/booch
This is not your father's Ada -- lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-08-29 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1996-08-29 0:00 AIA Position on Ada Simon Johnston
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1996-08-26 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-08-24 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1996-08-27 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
1996-08-23 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman
1996-08-23 0:00 ` nasser
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert B. Love
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-26 0:00 ` bohn
1996-08-29 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-29 0:00 ` David Weller
1996-08-27 0:00 ` Stephen M O'Shaughnessy
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger
[not found] ` <01bb9300$3af46980$4a6700cf@ljelmore.montana>
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
1996-08-27 0:00 ` nasser
1996-08-28 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox