AIA Position on Ada

[Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>]

I just received this; as far as I know, this is the final version which 
was presented to the NRC group reviewing Ada policy. I don't have any 
more information on the contents of this paper.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AIA Position Statement on Ada

12 July 1996

For Presentation to the National Research Council



The AIA.  The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is a trade 
association that represents most of the aerospace companies in the 
United States.  These companies are manufacturers of commercial, 
military, and business aircraft, helicopters, aircraft engines, 
missiles, spacecraft, and related equipment and components.

The National Research Council Study of Ada within DOD.  Earlier this 
year, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the 
National Research Council (NRC) formed a study group to review �the past 
and present contexts for using Ada within the Department of Defense 
(DOD).�  The NRC study group invited AIA to provide an industry position 
on Ada.  This document, AIA Position Statement on Ada, was developed in 
response to the NRC request.  It includes AIA recommendations, which are 
followed by a review of the basis for those recommendations.

AIA Recommendations

At a time when extraordinary steps are being taken to encourage 
commercial solutions and large-scale reuse, program management on both 
the government and industry sides should have more freedom to determine 
what best meets the life-cycle cost objectives of the project.  We 
advise the DOD to change its computer language policy now and end the 
exclusive mandate for Ada for all programs, including those for which 
the government maintains the software.

The AIA believes that a decision regarding which computer language or 
languages to use on a given DOD project is an implementation issue that 
should be based on a trade study.  The study, which should be conducted 
within the context of a specific project or a specific family of 
projects, should include considerations of performance-based 
specifications, interoperability, reuse of an existing system (if any), 
open systems, use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items, tool 
environment quality, cost and availability of tools, configuration 
management, and life-cycle considerations.  Such a study should be part 
of the requirements definition process; there should be no presumption 
in favor of any particular language.  The study could be conducted 
either prior to contract award or after the contract has been awarded.  
In either case, an integrated team including the developer (or potential 
developers), the supporters, the maintainers, and the testers all should 
advise on the language decision.  If the study were conducted prior to 
contract award, the study results could be included in the RFP.  The 
trade study should document the decision, the rationale, and the 
decision process, and should be retained in the government program 
office.

In a joint effort (lasting at most six months) DOD and industry should 
develop guidance on computer language trade studies.  An experienced, 
high-level, joint government and industry team of �stakeholders� (that 
is, parties who for many years have been in the business of developing, 
acquiring, or supporting DOD systems) should be tasked to develop this 
guidance.  This team, which should contain both systems and software 
expertise, should work to ensure that DOD life-cycle considerations are 
acknowledged and satisfied.  They should give consideration to how 
certain kinds of systems may merit special consideration; e.g., 
safety/flight critical systems, or systems where the size of the 
software exceeds a threshold.  Other factors include whether software is 
embedded, potential future modernizations, and interfaces with other 
systems and software.  The guidance should deal with the unfortunate 
fact that some managers on both the government and industry side may 
have insufficient knowledge of Ada capabilities; under pressure such 
people might ignore life-cycle concerns, or might turn away from 
essential up-front design analysis.  AIA believes that life-cycle cost 
studies and up-front design analysis should precede language selection.

AIA strongly supports the use of Ada in systems where its use makes both 
engineering and economic sense.  Our position that the exclusive mandate 
for Ada should end is not an attack on the value of Ada.  Indeed, we 
believe that Ada no longer needs a mandate in part because of the proven 
strengths of Ada 83 and the improvements that have been made in Ada 95.  
AIA believes that adopting the recommendations presented herein is an 
essential first step in moving toward a broad consensus position on 
computer languages within the defense industrial community, in 
appropriately responding to the thrust of the SECDEF memorandum 
regarding performance specifications and commercial standards, and in 
providing due consideration to reducing costs through the increased use 
of commercial products and practices.

In summary:

� Change the current DOD policy and end the exclusive Ada mandate.
 
� On DOD programs use a trade study to support computer language 
selections.
 
� To support this change of policy have a joint government and industry 
team develop guidance for computer language trade studies.
 
� Require the team developing guidance to ensure that there is a focus 
on life-cycle considerations in the trade study.



Basis for AIA Recommendations

The Importance of Software.  Software is a critical and increasingly 
significant factor in the systems and subsystems that are created by our 
member companies.  In many cases the software represents the integration 
technology for the system or subsystem as a whole.  For long-life weapon 
systems a software language is a long-enduring element.

The Merits of Ada.  The implementation of the Ada programming language 
within the DOD has been a significant factor in the way AIA companies 
deal with issues of large-scale software development and systems 
integration.  Ada 83 was designed to support sound software engineering, 
especially in large systems with a long life-cycle; noteworthy features 
of ADA 83 include strong typing and an inherent reliability based on 
extensive error detection at both compile-time and run-time.  Ada 95 
continues that tradition with increased support for potential software 
reuse and for object-oriented programming, and increased flexibility for 
real-time systems programming.  Additionally, Ada has an ability that is 
unique among high order languages (HOL) to be a design representation 
language; and it has been shown that in large systems the defect rate 
for Ada is significantly less than that for the more popular commercial 
HOLs.  We make these observations not to �damn with faint praise;� 
rather we wish to emphasize that Ada has significant technical merits.

The Limited Acceptance of Ada.  The acceptance of Ada has not been as 
widespread as its proponents have wished of it.  In the first place, Ada 
has only limited acceptance in the US commercial world.  There are many 
languages with a wider commercial acceptance than Ada, such as Basic, C, 
COBOL, and FORTRAN; and there are newer languages that are gaining in 
commercial popularity, such as C++ and Java.  In addition, Ada has some 
but only limited acceptance in the US academic world.  Most researchers 
in universities create small computer programs for which Ada has fewer 
advantages.  According to recent data from the DOD Ada Joint Program 
Office (AJPO), over 20% of colleges and universities offer courses on 
Ada.  Many Ada proponents believe that this percentage would be greater 
but for the lack of inexpensive Ada compilers and tools.  It remains to 
be seen whether the new availability of free Ada 95 compilers for a wide 
variety of platforms (including personal computers) and other promotion 
efforts will result in a greater use of Ada in the academic world and in 
commerce.  At the present time Ada continues to be encumbered by poor 
exposure in the US commercial world.

Ada and Development Costs.  Because of these acceptance issues, the 
development costs (as contrasted with life-cycle costs) associated with 
Ada become an issue that may impact competitiveness.  There is an 
ongoing cost to industry and to government software development groups 
for Ada training, since in many areas of the country the schools do not 
provide adequate courses.  The cost of industrial-strength Ada language 
compilers and other support tools is high relative to other languages 
that have a broader commercial base.  Availability issues may drive up 
development costs, also.  The use of commercial hardware platforms for 
embedded systems is increasing, and the frequency of performance 
enhancements in those platforms for both host and target systems has 
increased.  At the same time, because of the support for a commercial 
language environment by commercial hardware vendors, Ada support often 
lags.  This may result in less use of Ada, as commercial technology 
development supplants customized development.

AIA Experiences with Ada Vary.  AIA member companies have experienced a 
wide range of results from the use of Ada 83.  All have greatly 
benefited from the software engineering support features of Ada, 
including reduced error rates.  Many can cite projects in which Ada has 
had a substantial positive impact, overall.  Of special note in this 
regard are large, highly visible projects such as F-22, BSY-2, Boeing 
777, and Peace Shield.  However, some have suffered because Ada support 
tools were not robust nor available when needed, or because Ada 
presented interface difficulties in heterogeneous environments.

The Ada Mandate and Performance Standards.  Current policy in DOD on 
computer languages consists of an exclusive mandate for the use of Ada 
across the DOD.  Two years ago, on June 29, 1994, a SECDEF Memorandum, 
�Specifications and Standards - a New Way of Doing Business,� was 
issued.  This memorandum directs the use of performance standards, more 
reliance on commercial standards as a priority and greater dependence on 
the commercial industrial base.  On August 26, 1994, E. Paige and N. 
Longuemare issued a follow-on memorandum concerning the use of Ada, 
reiterating the DOD commitment to Ada, and noting that the Ada mandate 
does not conflict with the SECDEF Memorandum.  Most recently this was 
reiterated in the new 5000 series guidance.  Throughout DOD there is a 
need for more affordable weapon systems that use open architecture 
approaches to combat life-cycle cost growth during modernization.  In 
this context AIA believes that there still are open issues regarding Ada 
software and the desire to integrate the defense and commercial 
industrial base.

Acquisition Reform and Ada.  The DOD is moving toward permitting an 
increased reliance on commercial products, practices, and processes.  
Recently, acquisition reform initiatives have supported this trend; 
there is a general movement toward having government specifications 
focus on performance requirements - �what� is required from a system, as 
opposed to �how� to design or implement the system.  AIA supports these 
reforms and believes that usually the selection of a programming 
language is an implementation detail rather than a performance 
requirement.  As such the selection of a computer language should be 
based on both business judgment and engineering judgment prior to or 
during development, with no initial presumption in favor of any specific 
choice.  Frequently the choice has clear life-cycle implications, and so 
should be made with input from the support and maintenance organizations 
(if they are different from the developers).

Limiting the Number of Programming Languages.  AIA recognizes that DOD 
has an interest in not having to support systems in hundreds of 
different programming languages.  In the 1970s and 1980s it may have 
seemed necessary to mandate a single language to force a reduction in 
support costs.  In the 1990s and beyond, AIA believes that the 
commercial marketplace will of its own accord drive toward a relatively 
small number of commercially viable languages.  Going from hundreds of 
languages to several is virtually the same as going from hundreds to 
one, in terms of the benefit to the DOD.  In addition, we have many 
reports that the current waiver process, which is used in the attempt to 
enforce the single language policy, is costly and disruptive; a more 
open policy would reduce the cost and disruption.

Life-Cycle Cost Issues.  Certainly the DOD has an interest in 
encouraging its acquisition program managers to promote engineering 
solutions that address life-cycle issues.  These issues include 
life-cycle cost, supportability, maintainability, and adaptability, all 
of which were considerations in the design of Ada.  However, technology 
changes with time, and an equally important life-cycle consideration is 
the level of support for a language during that life-cycle.  In the US, 
Ada continues to be primarily a niche language for the DOD.  AIA 
believes that there is nothing wrong with efforts to promote Ada, to 
make Ada technology more easily available to faculty and students as 
well as to create a wider commercial base for Ada.  Only with wider 
commercial acceptance of Ada and its support and promotion by a major 
vendor (e.g., IBM, HP), is it likely that all the anticipated life-cycle 
savings will be achieved.  Ada should be maintained for systems when it 
makes business and technical sense.  At the same time we should provide 
for a transition to newer technologies that may have a greater impact on 
reducing life-cycle costs.

Fears from Eliminating and Fears from Keeping the Mandate.  Within both 
industry and government, there are some who believe that the exclusive 
mandate for Ada is essential if Ada is to build on its successes to date 
and continue to succeed in the future.  Such proponents may equate 
ending the exclusive mandate with �killing� Ada.  They fear that without 
such a mandate vendors may lessen their support for Ada products; also, 
they fear that without the mandate projects would not be forced to 
address software life-cycle cost issues.  Such concerns are not 
groundless; it is hard to predict the future with total confidence.  
However, we believe that the �doomsayers� are wrong.  Ada is too good a 
language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it 
die.  AIA member companies have made substantial investments in Ada 
technology, and have a clear appreciation of its value.  In the future 
as in the past, with or without a mandate, Ada will be a strong 
contender for large real-time systems that require ongoing maintenance 
and support (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program).  It may be a 
strong contender for other kinds of systems, as well.  The language has 
proven its value; after the recent improvements in Ada 95, the language 
is ready to stand on its own.  AIA has a concern that to continue the 
exclusive mandate for Ada could inhibit the use of commercial best 
practices, prevent dual-use applications, harm American competitiveness, 
and inhibit life-cycle benefits that could result from the judicious 
adoption of commercial products and practices.