Re: Anybody in US using ADA ?

[snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva)]

Why is this a red herring?  I simply said that maybe there will be
another look at ways to get more bang for the software buck, including
Ada (?, for skeptics) because the cost of software is going up. 
Surely this is not a controversial, or even particularly insightful,
opinion :)  True, it's not only DoD, but my comment doesn't rise or
fall on that fact -- it's only that DoD was mentioned in the message I
replied to, in particular:

> Two results from this experience:
> 1.  DoD didn't want to gather and then hear facts
> 2.  Language decisions are generally not made on the
>     basis of -any facts- but rather management perception of
>     "acceptability", "training costs", etc.

Mike
 

"John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net> wrote in message news:<277C0E266C8E20F4.834E70430320EB29.32074AEA42CE9212@lp.airnews.net>...
> Red herring.
> 
> Software budgets in ALL arenas are increasing, not just DoD, not just
> Ada-advantaged.  Compare the bloat in MS-DOS to the BLOAT in Windoze XP, and
> in Windoze applications.
> 
> Budget overrurns happen for two reasons: 1) the problem is harder than they
> thought, 2) the budget estimators estimated too low.  Usually, problem 2)
> occurs because management ORDERED the estimates trimmed for political
> reasons.
> 
> "Mike Silva" <snarflemike@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:20619edc.0301031202.1d0d8c1a@posting.google.com...
> > But isn't it the case that the amount of software in the "DoD arena",
> > as well as in general in the areas where Ada would excel, is
> > increasing much faster than such per-sloc reductions, so that total
> > software budgets (and overruns) are becoming larger, and significantly
> > so?
> >
> > Does anybody know of DoD numbers that show the total amount they
> > spend, directly and indirectly, on software development per year?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > "John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net> wrote in message
>  news:<CF4C46E154A483BD.B6BD906CB33FF02E.7A1A1669738DB3A6@lp.airnews.net>...
> > > Uh, excuse me?
> > >
> > > Cost per SLOC, in constant dollars, has declined SIGNIFICANTLY over the
>  last
> > > 20 years.  This was one of the big findings in the SEI CMM stuff, that
>  it
> > > really is significantly cheaper to do things right the first time.
> > >
> > > At one point, I was informally putting together a business case for Ada
>  and
> > > Rational R1000s at GD/FW, based on (a) Rational's productivity numbers
>  and
> > > "force multiplier" effects, (b) the known size of F-16C/D operational
>  flight
> > > software, (c) the expected size of the next airplane's software, (d) the
> > > size of the parking lots at GD/FW (which were ALREADY overflowing).
> > >
> > > "Mike Silva" <snarflemike@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20619edc.0301022244.2c16c563@posting.google.com...
> > > > David Emery <demery@cox.net> wrote in message
>  news:<J_4R9.114758$pe.4406969@news2.east.cox.net>...
> > > > > Mike Silva wrote:
> > > > > > "Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote in
>  message
>  news:<autmq3$4oe$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Its a shame to see that many in the DoD arena are abandoning Ada
>  because
> > > > > >>"Everybody else is using C++".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems like we should be seeing some results of the "DoD arena"
>  rush to
> > > > > > C++ by now.  As the data comes in, we should either see that
>  indeed
> > > > > > C++ introduced problems and added costs that Ada would have
>  avoided
> > > > > > (my expectation), or that it didn't (in which case, time to
>  re-examine
> > > > > > assumptions).  So, where are the C++ disaster coverups, and/or the
> > > > > > shining successes?
> > > > >
> > > > > In 1990 MITRE did an internal study based on then available data
> > > > > saying that the cost to maintain Ada was -LINEAR- on SLOC, not
> > > > > exponental as Barry Boehm says.  If you think about this, it's a
> > > > > radical conclusion.  And it wasn't done by the Ada people at MITRE,
>  but
> > > > > by our cost center's statisticians and cost analysts
> > > > >
> > > > > Back when Emmett Paige was ASD-C3I, he held a series of Ada Dual-Use
> > > > > summits.  At each, my position was:  DoD has the data available to
>  show
> > > > > if Ada has the value we claim.  Let's collect the data and let the
>  facts
> > > > > speak for themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two results from this experience:
> > > > > 1.  DoD didn't want to gather and then hear facts
> > > > > 2.  Language decisions are generally not made on the
> > > > >     basis of -any facts- but rather management perception of
> > > > >     "acceptability", "training costs", etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > dave
> > > > > (been there, done that, forgot my T-shirt)
> > > >
> > > > The only reason things *may* be different this time is that the
> > > > amount, and cost of writing, software is so much greater today than
> > > > 10-20 years ago that the risk of failure (or gross overrun) may be too
> > > > great to ignore or sweep under the carpet anymore, or, inverting, the
>  
> > > > potential savings from using the right tools may be too great to
> > > > ignore....
> > > >
> > > > Mike