Re: Ada News Brief

[Sandy McPherson <sandy@wgs.estec.esa.nl>]

Michael Feldman wrote:
> 
> In article <dewar.845384950@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >Ada programs are typically highly portable, but it is important not to
> >oversell this feature. I once heard the project director for the IBM
> >air traffic control system say that Ada 95 must guarantee that their
> >application move without changing a single line of code. The mere fact
> >that someone could state this obviously unrealistic requirement worried
> >me at the time, since it seems to me that anyone working with large
> >Ada applications should have a more realistic view.
> 

So, Ada '95 has to implement a portable operating system? That's not
asking much is it? Seriously folks, the industry is in a bad way if
seemingly responsible people can spout such nonsense.

> Hmmm - now that FAA seems to be moving toward using other languages, in
> addition to Ada, I wonder if that PM would set the same requirement for
> the subsystems written in... oh, say... C++.
>

No, he would have *assumned* this is true for C++. It is amazing how
many people assume C++ is as portable as ANSI C. C++ is perceived as
being sexy and beautiful, and thus seemingly normal people can be
reduced to the level of infatuated teenagers. 

Why are the FAA moving to other languages? In Europe Ada is ATC language
number one. Did the FAA get burnt by an Ada development which went out
of control. Could someone supply me with references please?

> Or was this just another subtle exercise in holding Ada to a much higher
> standard (unrealistically so, perhaps) than other languages?
>

Probably.

-- 
Sandy McPherson	MBCS CEng.	tel: 	+31 71 565 4288 (w)
ESTEC/WAS
P.O. Box 299
NL-2200AG Noordwijk