Re: Assembly language (was: Re: Another 1.3 wish.)

[agnew@trwrc.UUCP (R.A. Agnew)]

In article <8708241851.AA01472@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 4526P@NAVPGS.BITNET ("LT Scott A. Norton, USN") writes:
>With all the "my language is better than your language" noise going on,
>I thought I should provide some perspective.  There is one overriding
>concern in DoD's world of software embedded in weapon systems.
>
    Thanks, about time for some perspective. Perhaps people should know  what FCDSSA has to do
to maintain that code. They actully keep dozens of huge NTDS complete computer systems
at thier facility. When they want to support a particular ship they must pull out the installation
diagrams for the ship, actually configure (patch with wires)  the system for that ship,
and then try to maintain the software; but it seldom works because, besides the hundreds of
authorized documented changes, there are dozens of "Ship-alts" to the software
( like playing Pong with the target designator "hooks"). SCCS or RCS would have been usefull here. 

	Perhaps some people don't know that the life-cycle of DOD tactical software is 30 years.
10 years to insert into operation, 10 years usage, and 10 years to phase out. Perhaps they
don't know that it only cost $75 to $100 to design, code, debug, document and test one
line of HOL software but that it takes millions of dollars to maintain a small program
for thirty years. Of all the factors involved in the Life-Cycle-Cost (LCC) of a modern
system (say an avionics system with several hundred imbeded computers!) the software developement
and maintenance cost are by far the most dominant -- far greater than the hardware!!!!!