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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Waiver question Date: 1997/04/22 Message-ID: <335D0D8D.1BF3@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 236625976 References: <33585385.C8D@lmtas.lmco.com> <335AE4CE.2406@mail.mco.bellsouth.net> Organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Dean Runzel wrote: > > 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? If I ask C++ programmers, they say C++. If I ask Ada programmers, they say Ada. Of course, such programmers usually have not had to maintain code in either lanuguage for 20 years, nor do they understand both languages well enough to compare them, so it's difficult to get an authoritative opinion at that level. I did have the "pleasure" in the early 1908's of maintaining assembly code written in the late 60's, but that's the closest I've ever come to such a scenario. Unfortunately, that experience doesn't really answer your question. > > 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. That's because that section was TBD. However, lifecycle costs are required to be addressed before the waiver is processed. OTOH, it is oftentimes difficult to provide specific data for a 20 year period, when it comes to lifecycle costs. Therefore, this section tends to be somewhat subjective. > > 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) -- LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality" For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com