Re: Is GNU-Ada self-insulting?

[sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lambda.msfc.nasa.gov!robichau@hplabs.hpl.hp .com (Paul Robichaux)]

In <SRCTRAN.92Dec1223112@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonia
n) writes:

>Wake up.  Remember the Navy's effort with either Softech or Intermetrics
>to develop the Ada ALS Ada Language System.  Talk about millions down the
>drain.  The point in general is that the DoD should not be funding products
>or fostering technologies (the waste of STARS), but instead should rely on
>the free markets it is defending.
 
{ Disclaimer: I'm a former ALS/N developer and Control Data employee. }

Greg, I don't think you're giving a full and accurate picture here.

ALS was originally an Army project. The Navy decided to take advantage
of the ALS effort, such as it was, and recycle large portions of ALS
into a Navy variant- ALS/N, which was targeted at three embedded
systems (AN/AYK-14, AN/UYK-44, and AN/UYK-43) and the VAX.

Softech had the original contract and developed the first versions of
the ALS/N tools. Softech _lost_ the contract and Control Data
Government Systems won it during a recompete.

When I left last August, we had four validated compilers against ACVC
1.11. We had _two_ failed PIWG tests and several hundred satisfied
Navy and contractor users.

The Navy funded ALS/N for the right reason: it supported embedded
computers of which they were the sole user. Newer systems (Phalanx
Block II comes to mind) are increasingly using off-the-shelf hardware
(MIPS R4000s and the Verdix compiler in this case.) At the time ALS/N
was started, though, the 14/44/43 systems were in need of an Ada
toolset.

-Paul
-- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG              | May explode if disposed of improperly.
Mission Software Development Div.   | Printed on recycled phosphors.
New Technology, Inc.		    | ** PGP 2.0 key available on request **