From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c8bbb1419c8e81a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dean Runzel <drunzel@mail.mco.bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Waiver question
Date: 1997/04/20
Message-ID: <335AE4CE.2406@mail.mco.bellsouth.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 236373604
References: <33585385.C8D@lmtas.lmco.com>
Reply-To: drunzel@mail.mco.bellsouth.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> Consider a waiver request to use C++ in a Digital Signal Processing
> application. The waiver is based essentially on these arguments:
> 
>   *  DSP engineers would rather program in C++ than Ada, since it
>      makes them more valuable in the larger commericial marker. As a
>      result, there is much higher attrition when DSP engineers are
>      required to program in Ada, and so the development cost is higher.
> 
>   *  Most DSP tools are for C/C++. The number of DSP tools for Ada
>      will shrink, given that the DoD has decided not to mandate Ada
>      anymore.
> 
>   *  Most existing DSP code is in C/C++. Therefore, reuse is easier
>      if the new code is also written in C++.
> 
> Anyone have a reason to think this waiver shouldn't be approved?
> 
> --
> LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
> For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
> http://www.lmco.com


Here's a very simple survey you can try. Since you're at
Lockheed-Martin, I'm sure you can find several software engineers who
have used either C/C++ or Ada. Just ask them this question:
If you had to maintain the system 20 years into the future, would you
rather review someone else's C/C++ or someone else's Ada code?

As most texts state, maintenance comsumes 80% of the _lifecycle_ costs
of the project. Ususally, the government lets large contractors off the
hook by not requiring full lifecycle support from the developer. What
would LMCO charge to maintain the code for 20 years? Thus, the developer
has no inherent interest in considering the _lifecycle_ costs of a
project. I saw nothing in the original post related to lifecycle
maintenance costs.


All opinions are my own and do not represent an official government
position on any topic.

Dean Runzel
Software Engineer 
US Army STRICOM (http://www.stricom.army.mil)