Re: Open Systems closed to Ada?

[gvls1!lonjers@louie.udel.edu (Jim Lonjers)]

In article <SRCTRAN.92Dec1230203@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory 
Aharonian) writes:
>Backwards compatibility is a concept that translates poorly into the defense
>world.  In the real world, companies can't afford to write off the investment
>it has in existing software and programmers (companies don't have the tax
>dollar till to constantly dip into), nor can companies ignore the supply of
>programmers and software tools in the marketplace that it draws from (again
>unlike the DoD, which has tax dollars to develop tools (like STARS) and
>programmers whenever it feels like it).

You had better get educated.  There are very few new DoD procurements.  You
see a few large ticket items debated over and over, but the general trend
in the military is to revise, refit and extend existing systems.  As those
in the Navy's NGCR program put it -- "there is no more engineering from
clean sheets of paper."

If you take a good look at STARS (as I know you profess to have done), you
will recognize much of the truly innovative work that has gone on there.

>In fact, the very "backwards compatibility" which you seem to be making
>fun of is what will probably prevent Ada from establishing any significant
>role in the commercial marketplace. C++ and Object Oriented Cobol (which
>even I think is strange) aren't as nice as Ada, but they are backward
>compatible.

Yes, backwards compatibility has doomed many a good thing.  How many
mainframe manufacturers are going to survive "backwards compatibilty"
requirements?  It is a good thing, but it will doom all those who practice
it.  The world moves on.