First (?) mass-market PC software package written in Ada

First (?) mass-market PC software package written in Ada

[Michael Feldman]

Thought you might be interested in this. The June 1991 issue of Ada 
Strategies, one of those expensive newsletters, reports about a product you
might have seen advertised or discussed (I think in InfoWorld) called
AccessMac. This program allows - without extra hardware - an IBM PC
disk drive (3.5", of course), to format, read, and write disks in
Macintosh format (such capabilities have existed on the Mac side for
a while now).

The program, developed in the U.K., is written in Ada using the Janus
compiler. I will post the full story when the AdaStrategies publier sends
me an ASCII file of the text over the weekend.

I will, of course, add this to my list of nongovernmental Ada successes.
We can finally answer "yes" when folks ask whether Ada has been used to
develop any mass-market software, especially on IBM-PC or Mac equipment.
This is, I think, a first. I don't think it'll be the last, and hope
that the American software industry is not going to leave it entirely
to the Europeans.

A less-mass-market product developed in Ada is a PC-based CAD package
written in France. The name escapes me, but I will try to track it down.
Its developer describes it as AutoCAD-like.

Another interesting story is the one from Thomson-CSF, a French company
that builds air traffic control systems in Ada. The Copenhagen Airport
one is, I think, up and running, as is one in Kenya. The Netherlands and
Switzerland versions are under development. I'll post more details as I get
them. The bottom line is: if you're scared of Ada, don't fly into Europe in 
a few years.

(The American FAA is also building its new traffic-control system in Ada;
it just seems to be taking longer than the European ones. And IBM is the
prime contractor, not Thomson).

Mike Feldman

Re: Copenhagen Air Traffic Control System

[Paul Stachour]

mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:


>Another interesting story is the one from Thomson-CSF, a French company
>that builds air traffic control systems in Ada. The Copenhagen Airport
>one is, I think, up and running, as is one in Kenya. The Netherlands and
>Switzerland versions are under development. I'll post more details as I get
>them. The bottom line is: if you're scared of Ada, don't fly into Europe in 
>a few years.

>Mike Feldman


  When I was in Germany, I attended a "German Ada Expo" in Jnauary,
1990.  An individual who had participated in building the the
Koberhagen ATC was there.  At that point, it had been running for
six months, and (according to him) there had been NO outages or
major erorrs traced to the Ada software.

  Sorry, my procedings are packed, so I can't give a better reference.

..Paul
-- 
Paul Stachour          SCTC, 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
stachour@sctc.com          Arden Hills, MN  55112
                             [1]-(612) 482-7467

Re: Copenhagen Air Traffic Control System

[Michael Feldman]

In article <1991Jun24.134926.11913@sctc.com> stachour@sctc.com (Paul Stachour) writes:
>mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>
>>them. The bottom line is: if you're scared of Ada, don't fly into Europe in 
>>a few years.

>  When I was in Germany, I attended a "German Ada Expo" in Jnauary,
>1990.  An individual who had participated in building the the
>Koberhagen ATC was there.  At that point, it had been running for
>six months, and (according to him) there had been NO outages or
>major erorrs traced to the Ada software.

I hope it was clear that my "bottom line" was sarcastic. I find myself 
wondering how the Europeans managed to develop a working, installed ATC
system in Ada while the FAA system just drags along. The European airports
seem progressively to be adopting versions of the Thomson system. Taken as
a whole, European air traffic is not signficantly less voluminous than
American traffic - Paris, London, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt are _very_
busy places, and they'd all fit into the American East. 

A recent posting expressed concern that the FAA system will never be
completed. What's holding it up? Maybe we should just adopt the European
system (if it were politically possible, which I'm sure it's not).
Can anybody enlighten us here? Where are we going wrong?

Mike

PS - speaking of transportation, I caught a snippet last week at WAdaS
that the French high-speed rail network (otherwise known as TGV) is
using a bunch of Ada these days. Can anyone confirm or refute?

Re: Copenhagen Air Traffic Control System

[Paul Stachour]

mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:


>I hope it was clear that my "bottom line" was sarcastic. I find myself 
>wondering how the Europeans managed to develop a working, installed ATC
>system in Ada while the FAA system just drags along. The European airports
>seem progressively to be adopting versions of the Thomson system. Taken as

     I was told (take this as unsubstantiated, not fact) that one
of the reasons that the Copenhagen Air Traffic Control System worked
as well as it did is that it was:
   a) automated to all of Denmark
   b) depended upon telephone handoffs from other countries
       (no worry about machine-to-machine updates in-sync, losses, etc.)

  Please note that updating just the Copenhagen ATC for Demark is very
different from updating all of the USA.  It's maybe like doing Boston
only.

  Wishing I had more info,    ??Paul

-- 
Paul Stachour          SCTC, 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
stachour@sctc.com          Arden Hills, MN  55112
                             [1]-(612) 482-7467

Re: Copenhagen Air Traffic Control System

[william d orr]

>>mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>>
>
>I hope it was clear that my "bottom line" was sarcastic. I find myself 
>wondering how the Europeans managed to develop a working, installed ATC
>system in Ada while the FAA system just drags along. The European airports
>seem progressively to be adopting versions of the Thomson system. Taken as
>a whole, European air traffic is not signficantly less voluminous than
>American traffic - Paris, London, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt are _very_
>busy places, and they'd all fit into the American East. 
>
>A recent posting expressed concern that the FAA system will never be
>completed. What's holding it up? Maybe we should just adopt the European
>system (if it were politically possible, which I'm sure it's not).
>Can anybody enlighten us here? Where are we going wrong?
>
>Mike


Mike I am not defending the FAA system on this but there are several fundamental differences between stateside air traffic control and that in Europe.

The system that the FAA is envisioning will reduce the number of enroute air
traffic control centers (now called ARTCC) by at least a factor of 3.  With each
Area Control Facility not only handling the traffic of 2 to 5 ARTCC enroute
facilities but also the terminal traffic of almost all terminal facilities as 
well.  The goal here is to allow the ACF to also replace most terminal Radar 
Approach Control facilites as well.

To meet this goal will require a lot more than just new software but also implem
entation of new technology in data links directly to airborne aircraft control
systems to replace verbal commands that are now given to pilots by radio.  Add
to this new software to automate such critcal elements as aircraft separation by
altitude, airspeed and automated sequencing of aircraft in the terminal area and
you have a monumental task for any computer system in any language.

Compare our environment to that of Europe and you see the ICAO air traffic 
control
structure to be quite simialar but still different.

In ICAO most countries have few enroute facilities to interface (often only one
or two) vs the many we have in the states.  So the enroute air traffic structure
tends to be more similar to terminal to terminal air traffic using enroute 
procedures than the system we use where several to many enroute facilities will
handle most enroute aircraft.  I also have no idea whether the current air 
traffic control upgrades in Europe are also combining enroute and terminal 
facilities as our National Airspace Plan intends to do.  I suspect not.

After 20 years as an air traffic controller in our military both stateside and
overseas, I see the NAS plan to be a logical but very ambitious plan.  Perhaps
the NAS plan may be a little too abitious even though it's implementation has
slipped from the year 2000 to at least 2010.

I hope these details are enlightening and wish to add my belief that both the 
US and ICAO systems are needed and I am very glad that they are under way

Bill

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
\f
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.