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: 4 Jun 93 18:53:43 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ub!csn !news.usafa.af.mil!kirk!cwarack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chris Warack List-Id: In article <1993Jun4.142757.28992@midway.uchicago.edu>, dave@blackjoke.bsd.uchi cago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes: |> In article willett@cbnewsl.cb.att.com |> (david.c.willett) writes: |> > (on average) easier for an independent programming team to understand and |> > subsequently enhance than one written in any previous language. Thus, |> > it is easier for independent programming teams to create variants of that |> > system (J', J'', J'''.....) than it would be if J were written in some old er |> > language. That capability is needed if we have to fight protracted confli cts |> > like World War II, Korea, or VietNam. |> |> Even accepting your claim on the merits of Ada for this requirement, the cha nce |> of a modern war lasting long enough that major program revs would have to be |> shopped out to independent contractors is pretty small. This would only rea lly |> be likely to occur in a "total war" on the scale of WWII. Actually, this happens all the time -- war or no war. Some software systems I' ve worked with are 10 to 20 years old and have changed contractor hands 2, 3, 4 times. Pieces are spun off, subcontracted, maintained operationally by militar y programmers... This is the whole basis of the readability vs. writability tradeoff. |> Your WWII analogy can be used to _oppose_ the mandate. If WWII style ramp u p |> was necessary, the current supply of Ada programmers would be grossly |> inadequate. There would be a fairly sizeable time lag as programmers were |> retrained to Ada, and a (temporary) quality lag as they brought their skills up |> from usable to professional. With this in mind, the WWII analogy suggests t hat |> defense procurement use the language for which an adequate supply of |> programmers can be quickly supplied in case of emergency. C or Cobol, |> probably. This is a scary thought... It brings up that old question of what is a programmer? Is it someone who translates an explicit design, or someone who makes the design as well. In the first case, you're talking mostly syntax -- not such a big hurdle to overcome. In the second case, I hope they're good enough that the language doesn't matter as much as good design techniques matter. (I'm afraid, however, that that's not true -- the "adequate supply of programmers" out there are not good large scale designers). This ties into a favorite saying of mine... "Using Ada makes a bad design obvious, using C doesn't" -- Christopher A. Warack, Capt, USAF Computer Science Department, US Air Force Academy cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil (719) 472-2401