Re: ada and robots

[Mike Stark <michael.e.stark@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Joe Gwinn wrote:
<snip> 

> The attractions of COTS software will nonetheless draw many DoD entities
> to C/C++.

Which makes sense for the MIS applications -- I would be wary of
embedding COTS
inside a weapons system though.
> 
> In the aftermath of the AAS debacle, the FAA has turned against Ada, and
> now gives us the choice of C or C++.
> 
God save us all!  The AAS debacle was due to a lot of factors, IMO
primarily
requirements instability and failure to do any useful risk management. 
The 
FAA would do far better to procure and adapt ATC systems already in use
in
Europe or Canada (and readers of Dr. Feldman's periodic postings on
non-DoD
usage know what language _those_ are implemented in ;) than to start
over from
scratch in C or C++.  As a taxpayer, I am apalled by the waste of money
in
starting over.  As an airline passenger, I don't want the controller in
the
tower at Dulles to have his system crash while _my_ flight is in the
landing
pattern.  Just about every common OO language, and especially Ada and
Eiffel,
are more appropriate for safety critical systems!

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stark                                                  
NASA/GSFC                                           
Phone: (301) 286-5048                                   Code 551
Fax:    (301) 286-0245                                   Greenbelt, MD
20771
 e-mail: michael.e.stark@gsfc.nasa.gov
"I don't give them hell.  I tell the truth and they THINK it's hell!" 
Harry S. Truman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------