Legislative Mandate for Ada

Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Michael Feldman]

I recently received a copy of the section of the Defense Appropriation
Conference Report regarding Ada, and thought you might be interested in
reading what Congress has to say. For you outside-the-Beltway folks,
a conference report is the congressional document that reconciles any
differences between House-passed and Senate-passed bills. Both houses vote 
on the conference report, and basically that's how the law is passed.
In this case, congress passed this DoD appropriation bill at the end
of October, and Bush signed it. Here is the relevant paragraph:

"Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991,
 where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written
 in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption
 by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense."

In plain English: no gobbledegook about "embedded systems" or "mission-
critical systems." The criterion is cost-effectiveness. Might be fun to
chat on the net about how big a loophole "cost-effectiveness" is, or
how it might be determined.

As background, here is a lengthy paragraph from the explanatory language
that came along with the conference report.

"Ada Programming Language - The Department of Defense developed Ada to
reduce the cost of development and support of software systems written in
the hundreds of languages used by the DoD through the early 1980's.
Beside the training economies of scale arising from a common language,
Ada enables software cost reduction in several other ways: (1) its
constructs have been chosen to be building blocks for disciplined
software engineering; (2) its internal checking inhibits errors in
large systems lying beyond the feasibility of manual checking; and
(3) its separation of software module interfaces from their
implementations facilitates and encourages reuse of already-built
and tested program parts. While each of these advantages is important,
Ada's encouragement of software engineering is fundamental. Software
practitioners increasingly believe the application of engineering
disciplines is the only currently-feasible avenue toward controlling
unbridled software cost escalation in ever-larger and more complex systems.
In march, 1987, the Deputy Secretary of Defense mandated use of Ada in
DoD weapons systems and strongly recommended it for other DoD
applications. This mandate has stimulated the development of commercially-
available Ada compilers and support tools that are fully responsive to 
almost all DoD requirements. However, there are still too many other
languages being used in the DoD, and thus the cost benefits of Ada are
being substantially delayed. Therefore, the Committee [congressional
conference committee - MBF] has included a new general provision,
Section 8084 [changed later to 8092 - MBF] that enforces the DoD
policy to make Ada mandatory. It will remove any doubt of full DoD
transition to Ada, particularly in other than weapons systems
applications. It will stimulate DoD to move forward quickly with 
Ada-based software engineering education and cataloguing/reuse systems.
In addition, U.S. [government] and commercial users have already
expanded tremendously the use of Ada and Ada-related technology.
The DoD, by extending its Ada mandate, can leverage off these commercial
advantages. Navy Ada is considered to be the same as Ada for the purposes
of this legislation [HUH? What's Navy Ada? Anyone know?], and the term
Ada is otherwise defined by ANSI/MIL-STD-1815. The Committee envisions
that the Office of the Secretary of Defense will administer the general
provision in a manner that prevents disruption to weapon systems that
are well into development. The Committee directs that applications
using or currently planning to use the Enhanced Modular Signal Processor
(EMSP) be exempted from mandatory use of Ada as a matter of policy."

This is what is known as "legislative history." It is not formally
part of the law but gives insight into the mindset of the lawmakers
(or their staff people, really). Have fun with it.

Mike Feldman

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Charles H. Sampson]

In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) 
quotes the U. S. Congress:
>
>"Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991,
> where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written
> in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption
> by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense."

     From the English language viewpoint, this statement has too many modi-
fiers.  At least it does if you assume that they are trying to force the
use of Ada with few exception.  As written, two valid interpretations ap-
pear to be: (1) If it's not cost-effective, no special exemption is needed
to avoid Ada, and (2) Even if it's cost-effective, Ada can be avoided by
obtaining a special exemption.

     I think they meant to say that all DoD software must be written in Ada
unless it is not cost-effective; if it is claimed to not be cost-effective,
that claim must be confirmed by a special exemption from SecDef.

     To borrow Norm Cohen's question from another context, who writes these
things?  (Probable answer here: people who love run-on sentences.)

                              Charlie

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[g_harrison]

In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) 
writes:

[some of Mike's stuff deleted]

> In this case, congress passed this DoD appropriation bill at the end
> of October, and Bush signed it. Here is the relevant paragraph:
> 

> As background, here is a lengthy paragraph from the explanatory language
> that came along with the conference report.
> 
> "Ada Programming Language - The Department of Defense developed Ada to
...... loop put("bla blah"); end loop;

This seems to be pure psyco-babble.  It sounds like a memo from a Dean (My dean
doesn't read this [I PRAY]!).  The statement sould say "Use it [Ada] or loose 
it [Contract]."

"Cost Effective" is a wonderful generalization to mean almost anything
including "My FORTRAN programmers will claim permanent disability and expect
workman's comp."  or "Ada is TOO BIG for my machine. [read "Ada is too complex
for my programmers."].  If I get flamed, then so be it!  I just feel that
realizing that one [relatively] portable language with some nice features that
conform to some good software engineering practices is worthy of a mandate with
appropriate considerations to current hardware and requirements constraints. 


Any good programmer can learn to use Ada in the way it was designed.  

> 
> This is what is known as "legislative history." It is not formally
> part of the law but gives insight into the mindset of the lawmakers
> (or their staff people, really). Have fun with it.
> 
> Mike Feldman

I did have fun with it, Mike.  Thanks.  

------------------------------------------------------*------o    Happy---
-- George C. Harrison ------------------------------ * * ----o_o___ New---
----- Professor of Computer Science --------------  * * * ----\ o /-Year--
----- Norfolk State University, -----------------  *Merry* ----\ /--------
-------- Norfolk, Virginia 23504 ---------------  * * * * * ----|---------
----- INTERNET:  g_harrison@vger.nsu.edu ------  *Christmas* --_|_--------
----------These are MY views.... you may share them..*** -----------------

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <2577@cod.NOSC.MIL> sampson@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
>
>     I think they meant to say that all DoD software must be written in Ada
>unless it is not cost-effective; if it is claimed to not be cost-effective,
>that claim must be confirmed by a special exemption from SecDef.
That sounds like a reasonable interpretation to me.

>     To borrow Norm Cohen's question from another context, who writes these
>things?  (Probable answer here: people who love run-on sentences.)
Well, it probably was a Capitol Hill staff person, or else it was fed to
such a person by someone in the Ada community. The explanatory paragraph
looks like it came from the pen (word-processor?) of one of our Ada
evangelists; it seems to be too literate about Ada to have been written
by a run-of-the-mill Hill staffer.

Reminds me of the 1987 (I think) AdaExpo in West Virginia, where the
keynote speaker was Senator Robert Byrd. Some turkey wrote a speech for him
that put all kinds of technical jargon in his mouth. It was both very
funny and very sad to hear poor ol' Byrd trying to be smooth and articulate
about generics, tasking, and operator overloading.

As it happens, I know a bit about how this stuff gets written because my wife
does exactly this kind of legislative drafting for the Dept. of Education
(no flames please - she doesn't make policy). She is a very fussy and
careful writer, and is always aghast at the rotten quality of much of the
writing she sees around town. Especially disconcerting is the poor use of
English in our laws. How can we (dis)obey what we can't understand?

Thank you for not chopping off the head of the messenger because the message
was poorly written :-)

Mike Feldman

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Bruce Benson]

In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes

>"Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991,
> where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written
> in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption
> by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense."

"shall be written" - does this mean new software or does it mean we have
to convert the hundreds of millions of lines of Cobol to Ada?  We may be
able to do it blindly with a Cobol to Ada translationr and it would
probably be fairly cheap (as things go) to do so.  I can see the metric
the bean counters are going to use to check compliance:

                          Total KLOC - Ada KLOC
                          ---------------------
                              Total KLOC

If the percentage doesn't approach 100 fast enough then they will mandate
mindless translations.

>"Ada Programming Language - The Department of Defense developed Ada to
>reduce the cost of development and support of software systems written in
>the hundreds of languages used by the DoD through the early 1980's.
>Beside the training economies of scale arising from a common language,
>Ada enables software cost reduction in several other ways: (1) its
>constructs have been chosen to be building blocks for disciplined
>software engineering; (2) its internal checking inhibits errors in
>large systems lying beyond the feasibility of manual checking; and
>(3) its separation of software module interfaces from their
>implementations facilitates and encourages reuse of already-built
>and tested program parts. While each of these advantages is important,
>Ada's encouragement of software engineering is fundamental. Software
<on and on on the benefits of Ada>

If I've learned nothing else while working at the SEI, it's that most
software engineering claims are purely back-of-the-envelope
no-connection-to-reality sheer speculation, or in other words:
never been validated on the scale being discussed.  If the government
would simply recognize that their programs are just national experiments, 
and conducted them as such, then we could gain some benefits out of all
the mandated "good ideas" by using government as one big test bed.  This way 
we could justify the high cost of government by reminding everyone that
inefficiency and failure are valid and acceptable results when testing an
hypothesis.


* Bruce Benson                   + Internet  - bwb@sei.cmu.edu +       +
* Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407      +    >--|>
* Carnegie Mellon University     + Voice     - 412 268 8469    +       +
* Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890       +                             +  US Air Force

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Bruce Benson]

In article <9700@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>probably be fairly cheap (as things go) to do so.  I can see the metric
>the bean counters are going to use to check compliance:
>
>                          Total KLOC - Ada KLOC
>                          ---------------------
>                              Total KLOC
>
>If the percentage doesn't approach 100 fast enough then they will mandate
>mindless translations.

Sheesh, you can tell I'm in government.  How about if it doesn't approach
zero fast enough (Crosby always wanted metrics to trend to zero...).

* Bruce Benson                   + Internet  - bwb@sei.cmu.edu +       +
* Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407      +    >--|>
* Carnegie Mellon University     + Voice     - 412 268 8469    +       +
* Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890       +                             +  US Air Force

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Matthias Ulrich Neeracher]

In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
Feldman) writes:
> "Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991,
>  where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption
>  by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense."

To me, this looks like a rather radical attempt to prohibit further use
of Ada :-). But then again, has there *ever* been something cost-effective
produced for the Department of Defense ?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch
   "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can 
    even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <9700@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>
>"shall be written" - does this mean new software or does it mean we have
>to convert the hundreds of millions of lines of Cobol to Ada?  We may be
Well, I've been reading Ada stuff for about 10 years, and never saw even
a hint that old systems were to be converted to Ada just for the hell of it.
>
>If the percentage doesn't approach 100 fast enough then they will mandate
>mindless translations.
Oh, Lord - I hope not! Seriously, I don't have a lot of inside information,
but I really don't think this is what it's about. Do you have any serious
info suggesting this mindlessness? (I realize that we're all cynics in this
business, but fact and cynicism shouldn't be confused. Got facts?)
>
Mike Feldman

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Pat Rogers]

In article <18173@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) writes:
> In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
> Feldman) writes:
> > "Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991,
> >  where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >  in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption
> >  by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense."
> 
> To me, this looks like a rather radical attempt to prohibit further use
> of Ada :-). But then again, has there *ever* been something cost-effective
> produced for the Department of Defense ?
> 

Quite a bit, I would think.  COBOL is not my favorite language, but it would
be difficult not to consider it quite an advance for the times, and cost-
effective over its lifetime.  With respect to Ada, I have seen
a presentation by a fellow consultant to the effect that, once familiar with
the language, a very considerable increase in productivity is typical/possible.
(So it is not just a maintenance issue.)  The distinguishing thing about the 
presentation is that he claims to have the data to prove it -- a database of 
many (>100) projects.  My personal experience with the language (10 years) 
agrees with his assertion.

Pat Rogers
Software Arts & Sciences
progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Bruce Benson]

In article <2455@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu () writes:
>In article <9700@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:

>>If the percentage doesn't approach 100 fast enough then they will mandate
>>mindless translations.
>Oh, Lord - I hope not! Seriously, I don't have a lot of inside information,
>but I really don't think this is what it's about. Do you have any serious
>info suggesting this mindlessness? (I realize that we're all cynics in this
>business, but fact and cynicism shouldn't be confused. Got facts?)

Nope, just fears.  I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in
one of the military service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university
that got federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach 
Ada or have their money taken away.  Luckily, no one took him too seriously,
but his position was such that many people have to take him seriously (and
he advises other more senior people on technical issues, such as Ada).

I figure he was just testing out the idea by presenting it to the group. The
fact that he would seriously press the idea suggested to me that he was
more focused on "getting people to use Ada" as an end unto itself rather
than improving software engineering practices.

* Bruce Benson                   + Internet  - bwb@sei.cmu.edu +       +
* Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407      +    >--|>
* Carnegie Mellon University     + Voice     - 412 268 8469    +       +
* Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890       +                             +  US Air Force

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[David Emery]

>From: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson)
>I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in one of the military
>service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university that got
>federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach
>Ada or have their money taken away.

Actually, I think there's something to be said for this idea.  Even
more, I think that any DARPA or DoD-funded project should submit a
waiver request to do their work in something besides Ada.  Such
waivers should be reasonably easy to get, but there are a lot of
research projects that could be used on gov't systems, except for the
fact that they're implemented in languages that create a significant
maintenance/adaptability problem (e.g. C, lisp).  

However, unless and until Ada compilers are as affordable as C
compilers (e.g. Gnu C), such a requirement will be financially
untenable, since most schools are unwilling to fork out the $$ for an
Ada compiler.

				dave

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Charles H. Sampson]

In article <2455@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu () writes:
>In article <9700@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>>
>>If the percentage doesn't approach 100 fast enough then they will mandate
>>mindless translations.
>Oh, Lord - I hope not! Seriously, I don't have a lot of inside information,
>but I really don't think this is what it's about. Do you have any serious
>info suggesting this mindlessness? (I realize that we're all cynics in this
>business, but fact and cynicism shouldn't be confused. Got facts?)

     I haven't seen any mandate yet, at any level, but expressions of inter-
est in mechanical (read mindless) translation from various languages to Ada
keep cropping up in the part of the Navy that I work with.  Usually some
software house is trying to sell the Navy on the benefits of transitioning
to Ada and the wonderful tool they have to aid that transition.  I've had
to critique a few of these efforts.  The translated Ada was appalling, even
when the proponents were claiming that the program should be maintained (for
decades) in Ada rather than its original, natural, language.  These efforts
always seem to be presented as quck-and-dirty proofs-of-concept, with pro-
mises that the final product will be truly wonderful, as soon as a lot of
our tax money is spent.

                            Charlie

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <9728@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>
>Nope, just fears.  I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in
>one of the military service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university
>that got federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach 
>Ada or have their money taken away.  Luckily, no one took him too seriously,
>but his position was such that many people have to take him seriously (and
>he advises other more senior people on technical issues, such as Ada).

Sheesh! No wonder Ada has a bad name, with guys like this rattling
around the Ada business. I'll bet he's a friend of Reagan who believes that
government should get off the backs of the people, too. :-)

Every time I start thinking charitably, someone comes along and makes a
good case for cynicism. Sad commentary.

Mike Feldman

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada; mindless translations

[Michael Feldman]

Referring to Charlie Sampson's note on translations:

Of course the computing business has seen this translation stuff before.
I hope nobody would seriously consider just mechanically translating
Cobol to Ada for the hell of it. Would you all agree that unless a
system needs _serious_ revision, we shouldn't fix what ain't broke?

Given pragma INTERFACE and some reasonable way to call Ada programs from
another language (I know, it's not easy as things stand now), it seems to
me that even a multi-language system is better than either perpetuating
old languages just for module-to-module compatibility or mindlessly
translating badly-written Cobol into badly-written Ada. Who agrees ?
Is there any consensus on this out there (after all, I'm stuck in the
Ivory Tower :-))?

Mike Feldman

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[g_harrison]

In article <2585@cod.NOSC.MIL>, sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
> In article <2455@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu () writes:
>>In article <9700@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>>>
>>>If the percentage doesn't approach 100 fast enough then they will mandate
>>>mindless translations.
[stuff deleted]
> to Ada and the wonderful tool they have to aid that transition.  I've had
> to critique a few of these efforts.  The translated Ada was appalling, even
> when the proponents were claiming that the program should be maintained (for
> decades) in Ada rather than its original, natural, language.  These efforts
> always seem to be presented as quck-and-dirty proofs-of-concept, with pro-
> mises that the final product will be truly wonderful, as soon as a lot of
> our tax money is spent.
> 
>                             Charlie

Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to translate [relatively] hard to maintain
code to [relatively] easy to maintain Ada.  Wasn't maintain - ABILITY one of
the goals of the language and of the "mandate?"  When someone foists a
translator on us, we need to be able to show a useful Ada program that will
never reverse-engineer into FORTRAN, etc.  

In my research I've been using a program to run a back-propogation neural
network with delta learning rule and momentem terms.  There are about ten
FLOAT, STRING, and INTEGER parameters to the program that (in many cases)
significantly alter the run-time characterists of the code.  This neural
network learns and recognizes all sorts of input patterns.  The learning
methods are easy to "tweek."  etc.  All of this is done without recompilation.  

I am "_NOT_" telling everyone what a cleaver programming I am; I am just saying
that writing this in virtually any other language would be a real pain to
maintain.  

I am reminded about making a silk purse out of a ......

[Excuse me for taking up your disk storage but...]

A few years ago at the Nth Annual Ada Technology Conference someone presented
some hard facts about maintaining a set of FORTRAN programs vs. rewriting them
into [GOOD] Ada.  Ada won, of course, and I suspect the speaker was somewhat
slanted in his/her view.  However, the facts were indeed impressive because it
showed that Ada supports good software engineering practices in what can be an
effecient way.  It wasn't that Ada was the answer and FORTRAN wasn't: it was
that good Soft. Eng. IS the solution to actually saving money.

George

------------------------------------------------------*------o    Happy---
-- George C. Harrison ------------------------------ * * ----o_o___ New---
----- Professor of Computer Science --------------  * * * ----\ o /-Year--
----- Norfolk State University, -----------------  *Merry* ----\ /--------
-------- Norfolk, Virginia 23504 ---------------  * * * * * ----|---------
----- INTERNET:  g_harrison@vger.nsu.edu ------  *Christmas* --_|_--------
----------These are MY views.... you may share them..*** -----------------

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[g_harrison]

In article <EMERY.90Dec17153931@aries.linus.mitre.org>, emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>>From: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson)
>>I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in one of the military
>>service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university that got
>>federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach
>>Ada or have their money taken away.
> 
> Actually, I think there's something to be said for this idea.  Even
> more, I think that any DARPA or DoD-funded project should submit a
> waiver request to do their work in something besides Ada.  Such
> waivers should be reasonably easy to get, but there are a lot of
> research projects that could be used on gov't systems, except for the
> fact that they're implemented in languages that create a significant
> maintenance/adaptability problem (e.g. C, lisp).  
> 

(The next thing we'll have is the government trying to tell us that we must
teach the metric system.  ;-)  I disagree with the above statement.  It's one
thing mandating equal opportunity; it another trying to FORCE what we teach. 

There is still such a thing as academic freedom.  

Although I am the FIRST to propose using Ada as the primary procedural 
language in the classroom, I will not be forced to even offer one course in 
the language and its applications by the DoD.  We do offer such a course and 
another course in specific Ada-like applications, but it was our choice to do 
this!

> However, unless and until Ada compilers are as affordable as C
> compilers (e.g. Gnu C), such a requirement will be financially
> untenable, since most schools are unwilling to fork out the $$ for an
> Ada compiler.

I disagree again.  Although Ada is not "free," there are relatively inexpensive
compilers for PC's, and with educational discounts you can purchase a
mini/mainframe compiler for about the same price as any other. 


George....

------------------------------------------------------*------o    Happy---
-- George C. Harrison ------------------------------ * * ----o_o___ New---
----- Professor of Computer Science --------------  * * * ----\ o /-Year--
----- Norfolk State University, -----------------  *Merry* ----\ /--------
-------- Norfolk, Virginia 23504 ---------------  * * * * * ----|---------
----- INTERNET:  g_harrison@vger.nsu.edu ------  *Christmas* --_|_--------
----------These are MY views.... you may share them..*** -----------------

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[RICK CARLE]

In article <EMERY.90Dec17153931@aries.linus.mitre.org>, emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
> >From: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson)
> >I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in one of the military
> >service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university that got
> >federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach
> >Ada or have their money taken away.
> ......I think that any DARPA or DoD-funded project should submit a
> waiver request to do their work in something besides Ada...
> However, unless and until Ada compilers are as affordable as C
> compilers (e.g. Gnu C), such a requirement will be financially
> untenable, since most schools are unwilling to fork out the $$ for an
> Ada compiler.

What's stopping the DoD from buying up a ton of AdaZ licenses and
furnishing them as GFE on DoD projects (esp. research & technology
projects)?  If anything should ever be GFE, it's Ada.
I realize that sounds crazy.  But I seem to remember announcements
claiming that the Army bought 2 Army-wide site licenses for PC software
this year - the Procomm+ communications program and the PKZIP archiver.
I think both of those programs are inexpensive shareware that probably
cost between $35 and $75 a copy.  AdaZ only costs $149 (this month,
anyway).
So I suggest the DoD should do 2 things:
1) buy a DoD-wide site license from Meridian (how could either party
  lose?); and
2) extend that license to provide DoD with enough extra licenses so that
  DoD could provide the compiler as GFE to research and technology
  contractors.

This would provide the universities with plenty of cheap Ada and
eliminate a big obstacle to college-level Ada education.  And it would
reward Meridian for making such a cost breakthrough on Ada compilers.
[Of course the site license wouldn't have to be purchased from Meridian.
It could be put up for bids.]

	Rick Carle

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Bruce Benson]

In article <EMERY.90Dec17153931@aries.linus.mitre.org> emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:

>Actually, I think there's something to be said for this idea.  Even
>more, I think that any DARPA or DoD-funded project should submit a
>waiver request to do their work in something besides Ada.  Such
>waivers should be reasonably easy to get, but there are a lot of
>research projects that could be used on gov't systems, except for the
>fact that they're implemented in languages that create a significant
>maintenance/adaptability problem (e.g. C, lisp).  

These kind of fuzzy statements, that imply all the problems of software
engineering will go away (or be *significantly* reduced) by using the
current king of silver bullets (i.e. Ada), are at the heart of why we
in government sometimes make such dumb decisions.  We don't know that
any of this is true, but we do know that the problems of software 
engineering are more centered on people and mangement problems than on
technology problems.  We focus on technology because it won't talk back.

>However, unless and until Ada compilers are as affordable as C
>compilers (e.g. Gnu C), such a requirement will be financially
>untenable, since most schools are unwilling to fork out the $$ for an
>Ada compiler.

What about the rest of the supporting environment: editors, debuggers,
libraries, code generators, readable books, jobs, etc.?  (I had a boss who
insisted that WordStar should be a fine programming editor since it can
export ascii files!) Affordability of the compiler must be one of the least
important issues when selecting a development environment (or a teaching
environment).  COBOL, FORTRAN, and now C, are still the most widely used
and *supported* languages in the commerical world, and this dwarfs the 
government sectors need for Ada programmers.  Universities like to not only 
educate their students, but possibly give them a skill that makes them readily
employable.

When Borland creates TurboAda or Microsoft does QuickAda, then the language
is probably mature enough to hold its own.  Until then, it remains an
interesting experimental language by the government.

[All the above is, of course, IMHO and does not necessarily reflect anyones
thinking but my own :-)]

* Bruce Benson                   + Internet  - bwb@sei.cmu.edu +       +
* Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407      +    >--|>
* Carnegie Mellon University     + Voice     - 412 268 8469    +       +
* Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890       +                             +  US Air Force

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Matthias Ulrich Neeracher]

In article <737@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>, progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Pat Rogers)
writes:
> In article <18173@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch
(Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) writes:
> > But then again, has there *ever* been something cost-effective
> > produced for the Department of Defense ?
> 
> Quite a bit, I would think.  COBOL is not my favorite language, but it would
> be difficult not to consider it quite an advance for the times, and cost-
> effective over its lifetime.  

COBOL must have been an interesting idea in its time. The mistake, IMO, was to
massively push its use. The "user-friendly" syntax seems now almost
universally 
to be recognized as a disaster. As for cost-effective, I wonder whether it 
wouldn't have been even more cost-effective to delay the standardization for
some years, in favor of a better language. I don't doubt that COBOL was a 
progress when it was created, but for how many years now has COBOL been a
hindrance to progress.
   Likewise, I wonder whether it is really necessary and wise to hard-code all
these laws requiring use of Ada now, thus forcing programmers to live with
Ada's inconveniences for maybe 50 years or longer.

> With respect to Ada, I have seen
> a presentation by a fellow consultant to the effect that, once familiar with
> the language, a very considerable increase in productivity is
typical/possible.
> (So it is not just a maintenance issue.)  The distinguishing thing about the 
> presentation is that he claims to have the data to prove it -- a database of 
> many (>100) projects.  My personal experience with the language (10 years) 
> agrees with his assertion.

Does this data take into account that programmers using Ada were maybe subject
to a lot of additional training ? At least in one small study I have
read about,
I wondered whether the (indisputable) improvements had anything to do at all
with Ada or whether not all this could be explained with the improved training
of the programmers and the greater attention given to them.
 
> Pat Rogers

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch
   "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can 
    even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada; mindless translations

[Matthias Ulrich Neeracher]

In article <2467@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
Feldman) writes:
> Referring to Charlie Sampson's note on translations:
> 
> Of course the computing business has seen this translation stuff before.
> I hope nobody would seriously consider just mechanically translating
> Cobol to Ada for the hell of it. Would you all agree that unless a
> system needs _serious_ revision, we shouldn't fix what ain't broke?
> 
> Given pragma INTERFACE and some reasonable way to call Ada programs from
> another language (I know, it's not easy as things stand now), it seems to
> me that even a multi-language system is better than either perpetuating
> old languages just for module-to-module compatibility or mindlessly
> translating badly-written Cobol into badly-written Ada. Who agrees ?
> Is there any consensus on this out there (after all, I'm stuck in the
> Ivory Tower :-))?

Amen ! (From another Ivory Tower).

Could it be that sometimes even for new projects, a multi-language system 
is better than a single-language one. When I read about writing expert 
systems in Ada, I have the impression that this is not exactly the kind
of thing Ada is good at. Wouldn't it be better to write the "expert" part
in Prolog ?

> Mike Feldman

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch
   "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can 
    even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_

compilers for Ada; Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Paul Stachour]

bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>When Borland creates TurboAda or Microsoft does QuickAda, then the language
>is probably mature enough to hold its own.  Until then, it remains an
>interesting experimental language by the government.


  I have often asked myself the same question:

     Why is it that Borland or Microsoft or @@@ doesn't do a
   "Cheap" Ada compiler?

===> Climb on Soapbox

  This summer, I had an opportunity to answer that question, by
being forced to use MicroSoft C (both versions 5.1 and 6.0).  What
I discovered (as far as the MicroSoft C is concerned) is that Microsoft
doesn't have a C compiler.

  They have a compiler for some language, but it's not C.  I've taken
C programs that I've used on lots of compilers.  These programs fit
both the rules for (old-style, to me silly) K&R C, as well as the
rules for new-style, ANSII (half-way reasonable) C.  But they won't
compile and run on Microsoft C.  A variety of compiler bugs.  
Language features it wouldn't accept.  Size restrictions on a
640K PC that means C-program to equivalent size to that of
systems Implementation languages that compile on a 256K mainfrane
won't compile on a PC using MSC.

  I know several people who have validated an Ada compiler.
It's a hard job.

  It's easy to sell a C compiler; you just put something cheap
enough out, and people will buy it; I know that I did.

  But it's not easy to sell an Ada compiler; first of all it
has to compile Ada!  That is, it has to pass some independent
quality control step! What a strange idea for many software
developers!

  Of course, I like compilers (like ones for Ada) that will
accept and compile the langauge.  I don't like compilers
(like so many for C) that insist on rewriting the language
in their own philosophy.  Thus I never know what my programs
"should do".

  Of course I don't mind compilers that have both "their extensions"
for specialized needs as well as a "do it the standard way"
option.

  But then, maybe I'm a strange consumer.  On one multi-user
system with over 3000 users, I filed 30% of all the bug-reports,
finding things that didn't work right-and-left.  Most users
appear not to read the specifications, and think anything that 
the program gives or doesn't give them is right.

<=== Descend from Soapbox

...Paul
-- 
Paul Stachour         Secure Computing Technology Corp
stachour@sctc.com      1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
		 	   Arden Hills, MN  55112
                             [1]-(612) 482-7467

Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[Dick Dunn]

emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
> >From: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson)
> >I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in one of the military
> >service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university that got
> >federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach
> >Ada or have their money taken away.
> 
> Actually, I think there's something to be said for this idea...

(I think there's something to be said for it too...but we probably don't
agree on what should be said.:-)  I think that it's high time Ada was cut
loose from its life-support system of government-mandated ramming-down-
our-throats and allowed to live or die.  I'm serious.  If Ada can't sur-
vive on its own, it's not viable.  (For the record, although I'm not much
of an Ada fan, I do think Ada *can* survive.  It won't be the top
language, but it has its place(s).)

In fact, I think that some of the mandated use of Ada has damaged its
growth.  People look at it and say "oh, that's only for government work,
and it's all tied up in bureaucracy...we don't want it."

>...Even
> more, I think that any DARPA or DoD-funded project should submit a
> waiver request to do their work in something besides Ada...

This is the first step on a slippery path to a very uncomfortable level of
government control.  Again, if Ada is so desirable, why does it have to be
forced?  Let the folks who are doing the research choose the language they
find appropriate to the tasks they need to do.  I can see obvious cases for
using at least C, C++, Icon, LISP, Ada, and assembly language in various
aspects of research.  As for using Ada for the mere sake of single-
language consistency...well, see what Emerson had to say about consistency.

> ...but there are a lot of
> research projects that could be used on gov't systems, except for the
> fact that they're implemented in languages that create a significant
> maintenance/adaptability problem (e.g. C, lisp).  

I don't see that either C or LISP have any inherent maintenance or
adaptability problems.  Seems like it's more a problem of excessive
narrowness or rigidity in gov't systems if they can't handle multi-
lingual software.

Note that the position I'm taking in the latter part of this posting is not
anti-Ada, but anti-single-language.  The idea that one programming language
can be suitable for all programming tasks is bogus from the word go.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."

Ada survival without daddy Lord Byron (was leg. mandate)

[g_harrison]

In article <1990Dec20.015945.24282@ico.isc.com>, rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
> emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>> >From: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson)
>> >I sat in a meeting where an individual (working in one of the military
>> >service DoD secretariets) insisted that any university that got
>> >federal money (ROTC, research grants, etc.) should be told to teach
>> >Ada or have their money taken away.
>> 
>> Actually, I think there's something to be said for this idea...
> 
NO!  This sets academic freedom back 200 years!  :-)

anyway...

> I think that it's high time Ada was cut
> loose from its life-support system of government-mandated ramming-down-
> our-throats and allowed to live or die.  I'm serious.  If Ada can't sur-
> vive on its own, it's not viable.  (For the record, although I'm not much
> of an Ada fan, I do think Ada *can* survive.  It won't be the top
> language, but it has its place(s).)
> 
> In fact, I think that some of the mandated use of Ada has damaged its
> growth.  People look at it and say "oh, that's only for government work,
> and it's all tied up in bureaucracy...we don't want it."
> 

I am NOT sure Ada could survive on its own to satisfy the
language-proliferation [once] problems experienced by DoD; I also believe that
the attitude toward it would kill it almost immediately.  The press has been
full of negative comments.

[I DO hope that I am wrong!]

I have been actively programming in it for six years, but it does have some 
real faults (which I will not get into here.).  Languages like Pascal and C
have them too, but there are also many pre-conceived notions about the language
that would kill it immediately:  "Too Big," "Too hard to learn."
"Government-only languge," "Seriously flawed," "Too expensive," "Too slow,"
etc. etc.  

The non-DoD Ada efforts in this country and especially in Europe are very
interesting, and I would like to hear some of the stories (successes and
failures) about working with Ada in a non-educational and non-mandated
environment.  

> -- 
> Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
>    ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."

------------------------------------------------------*------o    Happy---
-- George C. Harrison ------------------------------ * * ----o_o___ New---
----- Professor of Computer Science --------------  * * * ----\ o /-Year--
----- Norfolk State University, -----------------  *Merry* ----\ /--------
-------- Norfolk, Virginia 23504 ---------------  * * * * * ----|---------
----- INTERNET:  g_harrison@vger.nsu.edu ------  *Christmas* --_|_--------
----------These are MY views.... you may share them..*** -----------------

Ada in Industry: Merit not Mandate

[Richard Pattis]

One of my ex-students is now highly placed in Boeing Commercial (not
Aerospace - the government contracting division).  He is in charge of
Avionics for the new 777.  He reported to me that of the expected 10M lines
of avionics code, about 60% will be written in Ada (this is up from 2M lines
out of 6M in their last plane).  He says almost all new software will be
written in Ada: much of the 4M lines of non-Ada code will control more
straightforward systems unchanged from previous airplanes.

The numbers are approximate, but I believe that this is an example of a
company in an economically competitive market that has chosen to use Ada
based on merit, not mandate.

Rich Pattis

Re: Ada in Industry: Merit not Mandate

[James THIELE]

In article <14228@june.cs.washington.edu> pattis@cs.washington.edu (Richard Pattis) writes:
| One of my ex-students is now highly placed in Boeing Commercial (not
| Aerospace - the government contracting division).  He is in charge of
| Avionics for the new 777.  He reported to me that of the expected 10M lines
| of avionics code, about 60% will be written in Ada (this is up from 2M lines
| out of 6M in their last plane).  He says almost all new software will be
| written in Ada: much of the 4M lines of non-Ada code will control more
| straightforward systems unchanged from previous airplanes.
| 
| The numbers are approximate, but I believe that this is an example of a
| company in an economically competitive market that has chosen to use Ada
| based on merit, not mandate.
| 
| Rich Pattis

I wouldn't be too sure about the *merit* issue.  I used to be intimately
involved with a 747 project at Boeing and am still in touch with Boeing
and vendor personnel on the 777.  The vendor who used Ada on my project
for the 747-400 (circa 1987-89) and those who are using it for the 777
do both commercial *and* DOD work.  They make no bones about the fact
that since they expect to have to use Ada on future DOD contracts they
might as well standardize on Ada for all their jobs.  The idea that they
are using Ada solely on merit does not, it seems to me, match history.

Nonetheless there are advantages to using Ada in that environment.  To
my mind there is the language standardization issue - these vendors were
in the past using all kinds of languages: FORTRAN, PASCAL, PL/M, and
weird ALGOL dialects can all be found in late 70s and 80s vintage
avionics code.  Ada certainly is a better language than most or all of
these others.  Note, however, that Boeing Commercial Airplanes division
has not in the past required any given language be used by a supplier and
they aren't on the 777.

Another factor that I feel is leading to greater use of Ada is standardization
on fewer processor types.  On the 757 and 767 there where thirteen (13!)
vendor designed types of 16-bit minicomputers and over twenty types of 8-bit
micros, each programmed in assembler or with a vendor's home grown
compiler.  On the 777 almost every major processor will be from the 80x86 or
680x0 families or one of a few RISC types.  With maturing Ada compilers
available on these machines it is getting easier to go with Ada.  Note the
word *maturing* - in 1986 we did a study at Boeing that failed to find
a single 68000 Ada compiler that could generate code that ran within a factor
of two speed of a comercial PASCAL even on simple looping programs.

One thing that is not an advantage for Ada in this environment is Ada's
tasking model.  Vendors typically build a tasking executive that they call
from since Ada tasks fit avionics problems so poorly.

Also please note that Ada is not a panacea.  It is perfectly possible
to write a bad Ada program.  I have a wonderful horror story on this point.

James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth

USE Standard_Disclaimer;