Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?

["Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>]

Michael Levasseur wrote:
> 
> Theodore E. Dennison wrote:
> 
> > I have recently been directly involved in a DoD effort using large
> > amounts of COTS hardware and software, and interfacing Ada to it has
> > literally been the LEAST of our problems. Writing Ada bindings, even
...
> > Getting COTS hardware/software combinations that will work
> > together, now THAT has been a nightmare!
> 
> Have you been building Ada bindings to C++? I've built plenty of
> binding to C source code, i.e. VxWorks. I don't know of a way to
> bind to C++ objects or C++ methods.

Nope. Haven't needed to.(That was my point, vis-a-vis COTS). 


> > I have seen neither of these. I suppose it depends on your
> > definition of "credible". The major players, Alsys and Rational seem
> > to be getting stonger than ever. And the last few months have seen
> > the emergence of ACT.
> 
> Well one of the companies you sight "Alsys" no longer exists. They
> are part of "Telesoft"... Oh no now both "Alsys" and "Telesoft" no longer
> exist they're "Thomson". Well there's "Verdix" oh wait that's part of
> "Rational". From conversations with "Rational" what they're working

That was 2 years ago. The current trend is quite different (If you can even
call something a "trend" based on such small numbers).

> Yes, but do you know of any major DoD projects that are be developed
> using GNAT? When you buy a FREE compiler you get what you pay for.

I do know of a couple being proposed using it (remember, GNAT is validated
on some platforms, including SGI's). 

Frankly, I have found that "you get what you pay for" adage quite untrue.
In my experience, "you pay what the vendor thinks you can afford (or a 
little more)" would be more accurate. 

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |