From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 108717,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-30 13:17:04 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!riehler From: riehler@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Richard Riehle) Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada? Message-ID: <1994Nov30.151523.19742@sei.cmu.edu> Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu (Netnews) Organization: None References: <3bcntp$dgj@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <3be9as$jrh@felix.seas.gwu.edu> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 15:15:23 EST Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:8108 comp.lang.c:32638 comp.programming:5510 comp.lang.c++:39003 comp.object:9192 Date: 1994-11-30T15:15:23-05:00 List-Id: In article <3be9as$jrh@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: >In article , >Robert I. Eachus wrote: > >> About six months ago I had to research part of the history of the >>first DoD developed portable high-level language. It is called COBOL. >>;-) > >Jean Sammet and others who were on the original CODASYL committee swear >that COBOL was _not_ "DoD-developed", rather that DoD was one of many >players involved. Obviously DoD had an interest in COBOL, but can not >be said to have "commissioned" or funded COBOL in the sense that they >did with Ada. > >Can anyone else fill in gaps here? >Mike Feldman -- ====================== Reply Separator ============================= Aha! The COBOL question. When a young U.S. Navy officer named Grace Hopper developed the precursor of COBOL, it was a UNIVAC-owned product. Eventually it became know as COBOL, but all COBOL manuals included a statement of permission from UNIVAC. Of course, UNIVAC's most important customer in those days was the Department of Defense. In April 1964, alas I was there, IBM announced its System 360 and a new programming language, PL/1, which would be the language to replace all languages (Sound familiar?). COBOL was pronounced dead. I must skip a lot of details in the interest of economy, but here are a few items. In those days, UNIVAC, Honeywell, CDC, and four other "dwarfs" were still important players in the computer industry. With the exception of CDC, none of them had a serious commitment to PL/1. When the DoD published software RFP's for information systems applications the language specified was nearly always COBOL, not PL/1, so all vendors could compete. I am especially familiar with a large USAF contract that was going to be in PL/1, evoked protests from the non-IBMers, and got reversed to COBOL. This is one more case of a better technical solution going down the sewer for non-technical reasons. In this case, the DoD prevailed, but only because it was pummeled so effectively by the seven dwarfs that Snow White was forced to consume the bitter apple and like it. Sory for the mixed metaphor. The influence of the DoD persuaded business to proceed cautiously or not at all with PL/1. In retrospect, if PL/1 had succeeded, it could have evolved in a way that would have made Ada unnecessary. Then where would we be? Richard Riehle