comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: news.intercon.com!eddie.mit.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.ed u!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!wellerd@louie.udel.edu  (David Weller)
Subject: Re: In defense of Admiral tuttle
Date: 13 Jul 93 01:38:28 GMT	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1993Jul12.213828.25056@sei.cmu.edu> (raw)

In article <CA2qwH.L1G@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Dr. Stephen G. Batsell <batsell@itd.nrl
.navy.mil> writes:
>1) I wasn't limiting myself to just "traditional languages". The 
>idea is the best tool for the job. If that requires a specialized
> language or version of a language that is fine. However, I will
>point out that SIM ++ which uses C++ is probably the best 
>distributed computing package available especially for simulation.
>
>We are not pro or anti Ada. We are only 
>interested in software market realities and how this impact DoD systems. 

I believe Dr. Batsell has just elucidated a good point.  His comments
support the general case that Ada MUST be used wherever economically

possible.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
proliferation of "specialized" languages for "mainstream" software
development will drive up long-term costs like crazy.  This is
the very reason we are required to use Ada.  My company uses Ada
for their large, distributed simulations (including the B-2
simulator and the Space Station simulator).  I have serious
doubts that a research toy like SIM++ could stand up to the
weight or the requirements of such "industrial strength" systems.
Mind you, SIM++ has some interesting applications for small
simulations, but hardly represents the maturity of Ada.

I believe there is a place for "specialized" languages, such
as SIM++ (or DRAGOON :-), but to advocate their appearance
in fielded systems is tantamount to unraveling the LONG-TERM
strategy of the DoD.  

Now, I'm sure Greg would like to pipe in about "economic models",
to which I'm not likely to argue (much).  The bottom line is,
the "best tool for the job" is usually Ada, even if it doesn't
look like it in the next three years.  But, hey, most of are
Americans, right?  That means we can't see beyond the current
quarter for projections, much less the fiscal year. :-)
(Carefully notice the attached smiley).

-- 
-Comments above aren't neceessarily the opinion of the SEI, AJPO, or CAE-Link-
David Weller  |  Have you hugged your DRAGOON lately?
----I'm the Ultimate International Masochist: I speak Ada AND Esperanto!-----

             reply	other threads:[~1993-07-13  1:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1993-07-13  1:38 news.intercon.com!eddie.mit.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.ed [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-07-17 19:06 In defense of Admiral tuttle cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!s
1993-07-14  9:05 munnari.oz.au!metro!usage!sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!cairo!gsc
1993-07-13 23:15 agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!milano!photon.mcc.com!brel
1993-07-13  0:39 Robert Kitzberger
1993-07-12 21:10 agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox