From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: AIA Position on Ada
Date: 1996/08/23
Date: 1996-08-23T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <321DA0F7.79D4@lmtas.lmco.com> (raw)
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.
next reply other threads:[~1996-08-23 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington [this message]
1996-08-23 0:00 ` AIA Position on Ada Byron B. Kauffman
1996-08-23 0:00 ` nasser
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Robert B. Love
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1996-08-23 0:00 Ken Garlington
1996-08-24 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-26 0:00 ` bohn
1996-08-29 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-29 0:00 ` David Weller
1996-08-27 0:00 ` Stephen M O'Shaughnessy
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger
[not found] ` <01bb9300$3af46980$4a6700cf@ljelmore.montana>
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Alan Brain
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-08-26 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
1996-08-27 0:00 ` nasser
1996-08-28 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
1996-08-24 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1996-08-27 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-08-26 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-08-29 0:00 Simon Johnston
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox