Commercialization of Ada Technology - Part 3

[eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard)]

Judy Bamberger at the Software Engineering Institute raises some
important questions in her response to my earlier postings on the
commercialization of Ada technology. Her main question is "why is [the
introduction of] Ada such a big deal [when compared to the
introduction of other technologies which have become "accepted" in the
non-Department of Defense community]?"

First, Ada technology is multi-faceted. If Ada was "just another
programming language," then the best I could hope for would be that
the Ada compiler vendors would greatly enhance their third party
support programs. However, what about the rest (and much larger part)
of Ada technology?

Consider the Ada-related software engineering environment efforts
(e.g., APSE, KAPSE, MAPSE, CAIS, DIANA, SDME, STARS, KIT, etc.). I
have notice an increasing interest in Computer Aided Software
Engineering (CASE) in the commercial sector during the past three
years. Examining the efforts in both communities (Ada and commercial)
shows that each has much to offer the other. I know that there has
been some limited communication, but I know of no efforts to
systematically inform each community of what the other is doing. (How
many Ada technology related presentations have been made at the
increasing number of CASE conferences? How many papers have been
presented at Ada-related conferences comparing commercial CASE efforts
with Ada CASE efforts?)

Consider the work being done by the Software Engineering Institute
(SEI). The mandate of the SEI is efficient software engineering
technology transfer. I would like to assume that someone at the SEI is
already examining various mechanisms for technology transfer which
have worked in the commercial sector. Assuming that an increased
commercial interest in Ada technology would improve and accelerate the
introduction of modern software engineering technology, there seems to
be some motivation for generating interest in Ada within the
commercial sector.

One of the larger obstacles to the acceptance of Ada technology
(anywhere) is that it only solves a limited number of problems,
specifically military problems.

The SEI is also designing Ada and software engineering related
curricula for colleges and universities. It is difficult to motivate
educators and students who perceive a technology as having only limited
applications (and military ones at that). The ASEET (Ada Software
Engineering Education and Training) group must have similar problems.

Consider the work being done by the various working groups in SIGAda
and the rest of the Ada community. I feel that the commercial sector
would be greatly interested in such the technology being examined by
the run-time environment, development methodology, formal methods, and
environment groups. In addition, the commercial community could make
important contributions to these groups. 

The second point I wish to raise is that we have different
expectations for technology today than we did even five years ago. For
example, when I was giving seminars on structured analysis and
structured design in the very early 1980s, I got few questions on
automated tools. Today, automated tools for a methodology are a
requirement. Some of the models and approaches for introducing
technology that worked in the past will still work today. However,
newer and different approaches should be considered.

My final observation is one that there is a very large difference
between creating a technology and making effective use of that
technology. Some technologists mistakenly believe that if a technology
is truly worthwhile, it will naturally gain acceptance. Others are
fatalistic, believing that any kind of organized attempt to guide
technology can have little or no effect. It seems so strange for there
to be such elaborate mechanisms in place for such things as the
validation of compilers, and yet few primitive mechanisms for
establishing the technology in the commercial sector.

I appreciate and understand the Ada Joint Program Office. I do not,
however, think it is their function to establish third party programs,
advertise in trade journals, conduct conferences, or otherwise
actively promote Ada technology outside of the U.S. Defense community.
This is the job of the private sector, and we do not have to leave it
to chance.

				-- Ed Berard
				   (301) 695-6960