Re: Ada Productivity (Was: Mindless Transitions!)

[waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu]

In article <2602@cod.NOSC.MIL>, sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
> In article <9012191446.AA10320@logdis1.wr.aflc.af.mil> kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) writes:
>>
>>                                 ... for information systems
>>"Ada Only" is going to cause an incredible drop in productivity.
	Well, there IS a price to be paid and, as a previous poster noted,
	program managers may neglect to account for it.  But a mandate to use
	Ada is the only way the government can produce a market large enough
	for all of the various productivity tools to be produced.

	The more serious problems for the government are to ensure that:
	1.	The language is adequate for the missions.
	2.	STANDARDS are produced for bindings such as to
		SQL and the X Window System.
	3.	The runtime model stays current with advanced 
		operating system concepts.
> 
>      The Army's STANFINS project would appear to be a counterexample to
> this.  It's a good-sized MIS project and the official line, from both the
> contractor and Army personnel, is that it's a roaring success.  I consider
> their very high productivity claims to be somewhat suspect, but even if
> they are toned down substantially, they're still impressive.
> 
>      There's an interesting sidelight to STANFINS.  The original was a COBOL
> system, of course, and the COBOL programmers had to be retrained to Ada.
> Ralph Crafts tells the story that when the programmers were asked to return
> to COBOL when STANFINS was finished, they not only refused, but they threat-
> ened to quit if they were forced.
	Not surprising, right?  Which leads to a further point:  part of making
	sure the language is adequate is making sure that it continues to
	embody advanced language concepts.  This will generally make it more
	attractive to learn (and to teach) and more difficult to give up once
	it has been learned.
> 
>                               Charlie

c.f.waltrip	<waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.