Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[engcon!rodgers@uunet.uu.net (KMRODGERS)]

In article <1992Sep11.164402.7141@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael 
Feldman) writes:
>Five years ago or so, I was made to listen to a drumbeat of exhortation
>from various representatives of the Ada community, meaning DoD folks,
>their contractors, and the compiler houses alike. These prophets told me
>that no student who didn't know Ada would ever be able to get a job.

[deleted]

>The results [of Ada knowledge desirability among non-CS faculty]
>are as follows:
>
>  C - 20                     Dynamo - 1
>  Fortran - 17               Lotus - 1
>  C++ - 7                    Assembly language - 1
>  Basic - 4                  Ada - 0
>  Pascal - 4                 Cobol - 0
>  Lisp - 3                   PL/I - 0
>  Gauss - 1
>
>Granted, this is a small sample. But the fact that 20 of 27 engineering
>professors thought that C would be important to their students' careers,
>and NOT ONE thought Ada would be, is amazing data. If this is the 
>engineering world's impression of Ada in Washington, DC, what is the
>take on Ada in the hinterland?

[deleted]

>Anyone who thinks that Ada is being held back chiefly by not supporting
>multiple inheritance is barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not Ada.
>The problem is us, folks.
>
>Mike Feldman

Amen, brother!  I work for a large aerospace and defense contractor in
the Flight Dynamics area (Advertisement!) and am involved in developing
vehicle simulations, writing specs for flight software, and debugging
flight software (via hardware-in-the-loop).  Back about four years ago,
the word was that all of our deliverable vehicle simulations for future
contracts would be required to be in Ada (they are currently in Fortran).
Several of us forward-looking regular engineers went out, learned Ada, and
became reasonably proficient in it.  What happens?  Either the gov't decides
not to specify Ada for the sim (and sometimes not even the flight software)
or our management weasels out of it.  From what I've seen, the Army is
the most reluctant to move to Ada.  About two years ago, we saw a draft
RFP that required an Ada simulation; four months later, the real RFP said
a Fortran simulation.  The difference?  The draft was pure Air Force, while
the final RFP was Army/AF.  At all of the program reviews, at least one
Air Force guy would stand up and bitch about the simulation not being in Ada.
Recently, we saw a draft RFP which basically provided the first two statements
of a syllogism which went, "All deliverable software shall be in Ada; the
engineering 6-DOF simulation is a piece of deliverable software."  Our mgt.
refused to draw the conclusion, and that proposal team is merrily still
working on a Fortran sim.  Mid- to upper-level engineering management at
this company (and probably others) are scared to death of Ada, even at the
embedded software level!  For whatever reason, and it probably has something
to do with the "mandated" use, Ada engenders a lot of resentment among most
non-CS (using CS to encompass software engineering, no flames please!!)
types.  I don't know how to break the stranglehold the C has (and C++ is
gaining), but as someone who has programmed in Fortran, Jovial, C, C++, and
Ada, I hate to abandon the future to C and its ilk . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rodgers  rodgers%engcon@uunet.uu.net  Loral Vought Systems
I only speak (in tongues) for Brother Bob Tilton!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------