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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c6e9700a33963193
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Steve O'Neill <oneills@top.monad.net>
Subject: Re: The future of Ada
Date: 1999/03/11
Message-ID: <36E7D35D.C4CF9E19@top.monad.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 453805355
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <36E690FA.4B9C@sandia.gov> <7c6gno$qqt@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Self
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Richard D Riehle wrote:
> 
> In article <36E690FA.4B9C@sandia.gov>,
>         Gordon Dodrill <gjdodri@sandia.gov> wrote:
> 
> >Ten months into the project, the project leader announced
> >very abruptly that Ada would be scrapped, C++ would be used,
> >and there would be a six month slip in the project to permit
> >training in C++ and rewriting the  completed Ada code.  His
> >reason - "There may not be any Ada programmers to do
> >maintenance several years from now, but we will always be
> >able to get C++ programmers."
> 
>  A project manager who makes this kind of decision probably does
>  not understand Ada or C++.  This kind of stupidity abounds.

Indeed it does.  I'm witnessing this very stupidity taking place but at
a corporate level.  The decision is not being made on technical merit of
the languages but on the fact that Ada developers are harder to find and
more expensive.  They make no consideration for the potential benefits
and detriments of the languages merely that C++ programmers are a 'dime
a dozen'.  Something about getting what you pay for comes to mind...

>  The one thing that seems to work out is, once a team that
>  was programming Ada starts to really learn C++, they begin to
>  realize the serious risks of associated with C++.  Unfortunately,
>  it is often too late to once again reverse the decision.
>  This is sometimes called "buyer's remorse."  The decision to
>  abandon Ada in favor of C++ is almost always wrong.  It is
>  certainly wrong for safety-critical software, which is what
>  most of the weapons systems are.

There is also a strong 'Ada is too complicated' feeling within this
company.  The fact that they have not learned to properly use the
language does not cross their minds.  But they think nothing of taking
the leap to C++ which I consider to be more complicated and more
difficult to use properly than Ada.  But, nonetheless, they will make
this leap and I suspect in a few years will be back in the very same
situation.

I unfortunately gave up tilting at this windmill.

Steve O'Neill