From: ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden)
Subject: A few notes
Date: 25 Mar 90 03:09:42 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19494@grebyn.com> (raw)
A few final comments here (a real diatribe = 100+ lines...)
From: Bill Wolfe, Clemson
>>From ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden):
>> [alleged problem with Ada:]
>> o Major project many months behind schedule (e.g.
>> STASNFINS, space telescope, WISS etc.)
> That's interesting, Ted... according to the Proceedings of the
> Eighth Annual National Conference on Ada Technology (p. 140),
> STANFINS-R was completed on time and within budget, and it was
> observed that the Ada code ran significantly faster than its COBOL
> counterpart. This is despite the fact that STANFINS-R had to take
> raw COBOL programmers and train them to be Ada Software Engineers,
> despite the fact that a CICS binding did not exist when the project
> began (and therefore had to be created during the project), and despite
> the fact that a Datacom/DB interface also had to be forced into existence.
> Not only was the Army's Information Systems Software Development Center
> tremendously pleased with the results, the Air Force has just announced
> its decision to use STANFINS-R as its financial software system as well.
> Any other flat-out lies you'd like to spread?
> Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
In the current (March 19) issue of Government Computer News, page 62, we
read that the SAT for STANFINS is now scheduled for May of this year.
Actually, that's a reschedule, and probably one of several. Major
General Alonzo E. Short is quoted in the article as follows:
"We are going to have to spawn something in Ada - a system that has
been planned, developed, and placed on the street in such a way
that someone can say, 'Ada is solving my problem'.
Because such a system has not been delivered yet, a fair assessment
is that the jury is still out on whether Ada can be used
efficiently in a large information system.
Many of us are standing on the sidelines awaiting the outcome to
see how Ada works for a large MIS.
If we don't start sharing the good news, we will soon have to start
sharing the bad news..."
Come on Wolfie, make my day: call General Short a liar.
................................................................
Dirty Laundry = fix a few things, old code recompiles with five minutes
of work on new compilers (add function profiles to old C programs)
Up Shit Creek = any of the real fixes needed would break the language; two
versions of Ada maintained for all times afterwards (as if one version
wasn't bad enough).
.................................................................
True Meaning of the term 'FIVE Year Plan':
>From: Robert I. Eachus, Mitre
>The same thing seems to be happening on Ada 9X. There is a
>groundswell developing to fix a few small things NOW, and leave the
>rest til later.
>It will probably take five years to get a good proposal
>together. I also think that that is a minimum time to study some of
>these issues and come up with something that mixes cleanly with the
>existing language...
Translation into plain English:
"By that time, I'll be living in another town, doing something else
for a living, maybe even using a different name, yeah... and some
other poor sucker can deal with THIS bullshit..."
Ted Holden
HTE
next reply other threads:[~1990-03-25 3:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1990-03-25 3:09 Ted Holden [this message]
1990-03-27 15:14 ` A few notes Bill Wolfe
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox