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: 103376,77b3d5e1a20fffd1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Paul H. Whittington" Subject: Re: About Ada... Date: 1997/12/17 Message-ID: <3498B3C8.432910F9@srv.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 299256223 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <19971130215101.QAA07721@ladder01.news.aol.com> <677hcg$s04@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <67a8a1$aro@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John can you give any comparisons regarding development and maintenance, in terms of cost and time to market, between Ada and any alternatives that have been attempted? John Apa wrote: > I'm sure sorry if I threatened your belief system, but since I work for the > company that does the work for most of Boeing's AC I think I can safely > make that assertion. The 777, 737, 747-400, V-22, and CH-47 all run on a > diet of Ada. New planes ship with Ada, and the retrofit market is mostly > Ada also. The guis are c or VAPs. We have hundreds of Ada engineers working > on Boeing, and even Airbus, products. So start believing. > > I'm currently developing under DO-178B (in Ada95 even!), the FAA's new > standard for flight software. It's very daunting, but most new software has > to be recertified anyway so having it in Ada isn't a big deal. Much of the > earlier (pre-84) SW was written in PL/1 and was ported to Ada. No, not the > best plan, but that's how we got to where we are. Much of the code has been > redesigned since then in Ada. > > You sound like you're stating that it'd be harder to certify with Ada than > anything else, that's just plain false. It also sounds like you're stating > that planes are never upgraded to more recent flight management/control > systems, wrong again. Airframes are around for quite a while and in this > market at least they are upgraded to increase safety and efficiency. Both > noble causes. > > The FAA and world authorities are coming out with new regs for flying and > that means better avionics are required to keep everyone safe. Something I > strongly believe in when I'm at 30K Feet. > > You could have checked these facts too, it's certainly not a secret. I > posted this information informally to show that Ada is not just a military > language. It is being accepted commercially where safety and reliability > are critical. > > Please check your beliefs and repost. > John Apa > > Arthur Evans Jr wrote in article > ... > > In article <677hcg$s04@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, > > "John Apa" wrote: > > > > > Ada is used on almost every AC that Boeing delivers, not just the 777. > > > > Are you sure of this fact? I find it highly unlikely. Many aircraft > > Boeing still delivers were developed long before Ada was considered a > > practical solution -- or even before Ada existed. As rewriting in Ada > > would require new FAA certification, a daunting obstacle, I find it hard > > to believe that anyone would have done such an upgrade. > > > > Please check your facts and repost. > > > > Art Evans > > > > Arthur Evans Jr, PhD > > Ada Consulting > > evans@evans.pgh.pa.us > >