From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 10 Apr 92 17:08:59 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil!lonex.rl. af.mil!vanderwerkend@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Vanderwerken) Subject: Re: Open comment to Ted Holden Message-ID: <1992Apr10.170859.10599@lonex.rl.af.mil> List-Id: In article srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes: >Sam, [stuff about Ada not being cost effective deleted....] >A good number of soldiers ordered commercial, >off-the-shelf GPS recievers with their credit cards during the Gulf War, >and had no complaints about their operations, especially those whose lives >were saved. If commercial, off-the-shelf, less mil-spec equipement passed >the test of combat, maybe the DoD software standards are as excessive. >Greg Aharonian >Source Translation & Optimization This thread certainly looks like it will provide lively discussion for this group...I'd like to throw in my two cents too: As far as Ada being cost effective--you need to look at the bigger picture. We don't just _develop_ weapon systems. We deploy, use, and _maintain_ them. One of the bigger (and cost effective) advantages of Ada is it ease of maintainability. Instead of giving some contractor one hundred thousand lines of spegetti code in C, we give them Ada. Now, I don't tremendous persona l experiance saying Ada is better to maintain, but everything I've dealt with does strongly suggest this is the case. Just for the record, I'm fairly certain the maintenance costs of our weapon systems far exceed the development costs. This _is_ something to think about. Using the GPS receiver analogy is somewhat inaccurate (IMHO). It's paramount to saying that smoking isn't bad for your health because you have a ninety year old grandfather who still smokes (while the other ninety percent of all smokers have already died of smoking related illnesses). We build our weapon systems to _survive_ a war time environment. If the commercial GPS receivers worked, great, but that performance doesn't guarantee they'll work under all specified conditions. During the Gulf War, we had a four star general come and explain how everyone laughed at the Air Force's requirement for a FAX machine which worked in seemingly rediculous temperature extremes. He then explained how those very same FAX machines were presently working in the desert under those extreme temperature conditions...and working well while other FAX machines (commercial) had crapped out. Ada software development is just the beginning of a weapon system's life cycle. Ada _may_ be more expensive to program in now, but I suspect it will get less expensive as more and more companies begin to use it. It's the long-term life cycle maintenance where Ada will really pay off. We're still maintaining systems built with FORTRAN and assembly code almost twenty years ago. ---Dan--- -- + Captain Daniel F. Van Der Werken, Jr., USAF | I do not speak for the Air + Rome Laboratory/OCDS | Force, otherwise I'll be + Griffiss AFB, NY 13441 | in Kansas making big rocks + (315) 330-4441/DSN 587-4441 | into little rocks!