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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 21 Sep 92 17:03:17 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.co m!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: DARPA admits Ada gets in the way Message-ID: <1992Sep21.170317.28618@mksol.dseg.ti.com> List-Id: In <1992Sep18.163435.9956@oracle.pnl.gov> jordan@warped.pnl.gov (Randy Jordan) writes: Well, it looks like we've found another language bigot who wants to play 'flamewar'. >In article <1992Sep18.004238.2689@mathsoft.com>, aha@mathsoft.com (Greg Aharon ian) writes: >|>Path: pnl-oracle!ogicse!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!think.com!mathsoft!aha >|>From: aha@mathsoft.com (Greg Aharonian) >|>Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada >|>Subject: DARPA admits Ada gets in the way >|>Message-ID: <1992Sep18.004238.2689@mathsoft.com> >|>Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 17:42:38 GMT+8:00 >|>Article-I.D.: mathsoft.1992Sep18.004238.2689 >|>Sender: usenet@mathsoft.com (Usenet News Administration) >|>Organization: MathSoft, Inc. >|>Lines: 82 >|>Nntp-Posting-Host: fresnel >|> >|> >|> >|>That it has taken this long for people in DARPA finally to say something >|>tells alot about the supression of dissent inside the DoD. After all, >|>when Ada first was really mandated, DARPA knew (or should have known) >|>what languages its contractors were using and how likely any of these >|>people would be to switch to Ada (trying converting some of these large >|>Lisp systems to Ada). Given existing language transitions in general >The LAW does NOT require conversion of existing programs written in ANY >language .... only of NEW developement to be done in Ada (Thank GOD). And what does it say about little details like changes or updates to existing code, legacy code, etc., etc.? >|>(which are low, and mostly in technical community Fortran --> C/C++) >NO one in their right mind converts FORTRAN to C anything. I delivered >a FORTRAN (2167) program to the Army several years ago (Before Ada) even THEN >C language was UNacceptable. Must be a lot of people out there who aren't in their right minds, then. Personally, I think the idea of 'language conversion' is rather silly, anyway, since code run through converters (or even if 'converted' by hand) is typically much harder to maintain. Better to redesign it and make use of the features of the new language. >|>and with a mandate from the DoD, it should been obvious that not many of >|>DARPA's contractors would switch to Ada. Obviously in the years since >Almost ALL DoD contractors use Ada now. Yes, with a gun to their heads. They also use a lot of other things. >|>they haven't, and DARPA's current policy downgrading Ada reflects this. >|> >|> And if these people are stating these things publicly, imagine the rest >|>of the dissent that is still being suppressed within the DoD with regards >|>to Ada. If you read the program to the next Tri-Ada Conference, you will >|>not see anything that reflects this dissension at all. >|> >|> What is so pathetic about the defense community botching of Ada is that >|>with less money and attention, it's VHDL language is catching on like crazy >|>in the circuit design world. VHDL is being accepted in that community like >|>Ada advocates can only dream about. What's funny is that the the languages >|>(Ada, VHDL) are similar enough syntactically that many of the defenses of >|>Ada's non-acceptance, in light of VHDL, are false. >|> >VHDL... Never heard of it. Don't do anything having to do with hardware, do you? >|> >|> WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY, PEOPLE >|> DON'T SPEND IT ON ADA OR REUSABLE SOFTWARE. >|> >No, they spend it on Debugging and fixing C bugs, tring to read and maintain C >source and retrain jr programmers to updata unstructured C systems. In a (polite) word, hogwash! Didn't they ever teach you that you should pick the proper language and tools for each specific job. This is what I see as the biggest problem with the 'Ada Mandate'. It requires you to use a hammer, even if your problem doesn't happen to look like a nail. As Dennis Ritchie once said (referring to something else entirely), "If you want PL/I, you know where to find it." -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.