* C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? @ 1998-07-07 0:00 nabbasi 1998-07-08 0:00 ` vonhend ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: nabbasi @ 1998-07-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) what do you think they mean by saying C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada? in what sense? if they measure the time one spends fixing C/C++ bugs that an Ada compile finds at compile time, they'll find Ada much cheaper. interesting in that they say "cheaper" then follow that by "engineering approach". Nasser -- GOVERNMENT NEWS GCN June 22, 1998 http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A1=ind9806&L=team-ada#5 "Defense is increasingly turning to cheaper programming languages such as C and C++ to program its systems. DOD is encouraging systems programmers to use an engineering approach when selecting a software language, based on a number of factors including lifecycle costs, risks and interoperability. "DOD policy now places all programming languages on equal footing, where capability to provide the best support to the mission requirement will drive the solution selected, not a one-size-fits-all mandate," Valletta said. " ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? 1998-07-07 0:00 C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? nabbasi @ 1998-07-08 0:00 ` vonhend 1998-07-09 0:00 ` Lengyel Sandor 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Do-While Jones ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: vonhend @ 1998-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <6nubua$ocj@drn.newsguy.com>, nabbasi@earthlink.net writes: > >what do you think they mean by saying C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada? in >what sense? if they measure the time one spends fixing C/C++ bugs that >an Ada compile finds at compile time, they'll find Ada much cheaper. > Generally, when they say C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada, the DoD is considering only 2 factors: the cost of licenses for the compilers, and the cost of software engineers/programmers with sufficient skill with (read "knowledge of" for "skill with") the language. In general, on the kinds of computer systems in wide use by DoD (VAX, Sun SPARCs, HPs, IBMs--but not PCs) Ada compilers require _expensive_ licenses. On the other hand, a C and/or C++ compiler is often bundled (for no extra charge) with the operating system. As for programmers, the colleges, universities, and trade schools are turning out C++ programmers by the thousands. Ada programmers are comparatively rare. In this country (USA), many hiring managers have the erroneous impression that Ada is unsuited to business programming, but C++ is excellent for it. As a result, the educational centers are pushed toward ... well, just look in the newspaper at the classified section. It is emphatically not cheaper to build a sizeable application (anything over 100,000 lines of code) in C++. Even if you take fresh from college C programmers, train them in Ada programming and the use of Ada-specific software development tools, buy new hardware and software, and do all the documentation required by MIL-STD 2167A, it still costs much less to develop the program in C++. The above statement is based not only on my experience (nearly 20 years in major aerospace corporations) but on those of colleagues who have managed a variety of large and small software projects for said aerospace corporations. Mark Von Hendy, Sr. Scientific Programmer/Analyst Lockheed Martin Technical Operations >interesting in that they say "cheaper" then follow that by "engineering >approach". > >Nasser > >-- >GOVERNMENT NEWS > >GCN June 22, 1998 > >http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A1=ind9806&L=team-ada#5 > >"Defense is increasingly turning to cheaper programming languages >such as C and C++ to program its systems. DOD is >encouraging systems programmers to use an engineering approach >when selecting a software language, based on a number >of factors including lifecycle costs, risks and interoperability. > >"DOD policy now places all programming languages on equal footing, where >capability to provide the best support to the >mission requirement will drive the solution selected, not a one-size-fits-all >mandate," Valletta said. " ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? 1998-07-08 0:00 ` vonhend @ 1998-07-09 0:00 ` Lengyel Sandor 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Lengyel Sandor @ 1998-07-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) vonhend@ibm.net wrote: > > > It is emphatically not cheaper to build a sizeable application (anything over > 100,000 lines of code) in C++. Even if you take fresh from college C programmers, > train them in Ada programming and the use of Ada-specific software development > tools, buy new hardware and software, and do all the documentation required > by MIL-STD 2167A, it still costs much less to develop the program in C++. <<<<<<<Typo>>>>> > > The above statement is based not only on my experience (nearly 20 years in > major aerospace corporations) but on those of colleagues who have managed > a variety of large and small software projects for said aerospace corporations. > > Mark Von Hendy, Sr. Scientific Programmer/Analyst > Lockheed Martin Technical Operations > -- Lengyel Sándor Hass, alkoss, gyarapits, S a haza fényre derül. (Kölcsey) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? 1998-07-07 0:00 C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? nabbasi 1998-07-08 0:00 ` vonhend @ 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Do-While Jones 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough 3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Do-While Jones @ 1998-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6nubua$ocj@drn.newsguy.com>, <nabbasi@earthlink.net> wrote: > >what do you think they mean by saying C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada? in >what sense? Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary gives this definition of "cheap": "3 a : of inferior quality or worth : TAWDRY, SLEAZY b: contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities " Perhaps that's what they mean. :-) >-- >GOVERNMENT NEWS > >GCN June 22, 1998 > >http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A1=ind9806&L=team-ada#5 > >"Defense is increasingly turning to cheaper programming languages >such as C and C++ to program its systems. Do-While Jones +--------------------------------+ | Know Ada | | [Ada's Portrait] | | Will Travel | | wire do_while@ridgecrest.ca.us | | www.ridgenet.net/~do_while | +--------------------------------+ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? 1998-07-07 0:00 C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? nabbasi 1998-07-08 0:00 ` vonhend 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Do-While Jones @ 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1998-07-10 0:00 ` Robert S. White 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough 3 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Bob Munck @ 1998-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Let's face it, folks, the Ada effort had us fooled for decades into thinking that the DoD had a handle on software, development environments, project management, etc. We ignored the evidence from things like ICASE and STARS because Ada seemed to indicate that they'd at least gotten the basics right. Now that the current program manager fad is C++, we hear their brain-dead justifications for it and realize how deluded we were. Sic transit gloria Ada. Bob Munck Mill Creek Systems LC ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Bob Munck @ 1998-07-10 0:00 ` Robert S. White 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Robert S. White @ 1998-07-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <35a3e989.208105089@news.mindspring.com>, munck@Mill-Creek-Systems.com says... > >Let's face it, folks, the Ada effort had us fooled for decades >into thinking that the DoD had a handle on software, >development environments, project management, etc. >We ignored the evidence from things like ICASE and >STARS because Ada seemed to indicate that they'd at >least gotten the basics right. Now that the current program >manager fad is C++, we hear their brain-dead justifications >for it and realize how deluded we were. Sic transit gloria Ada. Actually its not as bad as that. With the current Non-Developmental Item (NDI) philosophy of DoD product acquisition the use of Ada has turned into a non-mandate competitive edge. Suh! Keep it quiet! It's a competitive edge! Only companies with senior SW engineers who know how to effectively specify/justify Ada in the SW engineering developement plan (we are now SEI level 3 or higher now aren't we) and get the new/junior SW engineers trained (in Ada and other best practice SWE development methods) end up delivering product that works as required within spec. Avoiding warrenty SW bugs _does_ end up making a program profitable in the long run. The ability to get a high degree of software reuse and short time to market with new features/improvements maintains the market share, profit and competitive edge. IMHO & IME. I hope my competition tries to use C++ with only new personnel that don't understand embedded Real Time programming constraints! _____________________________________________________________________ Robert S. White -- An embedded systems software engineer e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ): net mcleodusa shift2 r white ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? 1998-07-07 0:00 C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? nabbasi ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Bob Munck @ 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough 3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dale Stanbrough @ 1998-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) ""DOD policy now places all programming languages on equal footing, where capability to provide the best support to the mission requirement will drive the solution selected, not a one-size-fits-all mandate," Valletta said. "" Ho ho ho! "Please all people, forget all the innuendo you have heard about Ada, our policy is that all languages are on an equal footing" Perhaps Valletta should undertake a course in psychology. I personally doubt the professionallism of so many so called professionals to make an informed, impartial disinterested choice. Dale ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-07-10 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1998-07-07 0:00 C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how? nabbasi 1998-07-08 0:00 ` vonhend 1998-07-09 0:00 ` Lengyel Sandor 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Do-While Jones 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1998-07-10 0:00 ` Robert S. White 1998-07-08 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox