Re: Ada Successor Language

[ric.wai88@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 7:56:05 PM UTC-4, Dan'l Miller wrote:

> Job postings are a moderately good leading indicator.  Job postings from defense contractors in the Dallas & Fort Worth, Texas, metropolitan area fall into 3 categories:
> 1) Java, Java, everywhere, including non-UI/UX embedded systems.
> 2) C/C++ for embedded hard-realtime.
> 3) Ada-to-C++ conversion to decommission Ada systems.
> 
> In recent months, I haven't seen •any• Ada-only or you're-going-to-author-Ada-source-code job postings at DoD/aerospace companies locally here.  And that includes the local facilities for Raytheon, Boeing, Rockwell Collins, L3, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, and Textron Vaught Bell helicopters.

There are a few studies out there that have shown training new hires in Ada is very easy, and is much easier than trying to find programmers already proficient in Ada. Of course the money-driven defence industry would rather hire a bunch of cheap young people than older experienced people. I also do Ada training, and I concur that it is quite easy to do. We also don't explicitly require Ada on our job applications, since most universities don't teach Ada (unfortunately), and we're not working in aerospace.

So I personally don't think that the job postings not including Ada as a requirement really means, definitively, that these companies are not using Ada anymore. Ada is technically superior in many cases, and this has to be a consideration for some of the more competent managers, however rare they may be.