Re: Ada's (in)visibility

[csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!nitelog!michael.hagerty@decwrl.dec.com (Mic hael Hagerty)]

In a message to ALL, KEVIN RODGERS writes:

K.                                             Back about four years ago,
K. the word was that all of our deliverable vehicle simulations for future
K. contracts would be required to be in Ada (they are currently in
K. Fortran). Several of us forward-looking regular engineers went out,
K. learned Ada, and became reasonably proficient in it.  What happens?
K. Either the gov't decides not to specify Ada for the sim (and sometimes
K. not even the flight software) or our management weasels out of it.

I've seen a similar situation (Navy/FORTRAN shop) where a number of the
software types seem eager to learn the "A" language and have gone out of
the way to take classes, etc.  Unfortunately, management is reluctant to
move to Ada, but seems very willing to fully embrace C instead...  As I
live and learn, I am continually amazed!

K. From what I've seen, the Army is the most reluctant to move to Ada.

Well, golly...  I sat at a table for dinner with Grace Hopper the week that
"green" became Ada.  Her comment was that if she had her way, she would
"scuttle it"...  I see system after system being done by or for the Navy
in C (and FORTRAN) and never hear of approved waivers.

The most coneheaded response I've heard to the question, "Why didn't you
do it in Ada, the mandated language?" was, "We had to be compatible with
X-windows, the Navy standard, and there was no requirement for Ada."  Of
course the Navy had yet (has it since then?) to select a windowing standard
of any kind.  The more I see of this, the more disheartened I become.  It
seems that all the excuses are like a**holes; everyone has one and they all
stink...

Regards, Mikey (michael.hagerty@nitelog.com)

---
Statements and opinions are mine alone -- I have no idea what my company
thinks about these issues.
---
 . JABBER v1.3.1 #.042 . Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers.