Re: Ada in Australia (was Ada ad in Embedded Systems Programming stinks)

[cperrott@krakatoa.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Chris Perrott)]

In article <38us16$c0e@godzilla.zeta.org.au> andrewl@zeta.org.au (Andrew Lees) writes:
>bjw@f111.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER) writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>It is also worth noting that of three Ada projects you mentioned, I know for 
>>a fact that at least two of these are in SERIOUS trouble, facing serious
>>architectual/design problems and the resulting cost and schedule slip (like 3+
>>years late!!).
>
>Hmm,
>
>I suspect that I should not really respond to this, but the implication here
Probably right!
>(that Ada is involved in any problems these projects may have ) is simply
>too wrong to leave alone.
>
>I am aware of all of these projects, having been involved in one for seven
>years, having technically auditted one other, and having close contacts
>in the third.
>
>Where there have been problems, the root causes have been in the management
>domain rather than the technical.  This is so on both of the projects that
Well, yes and no. Ada 83 provides a way to get the address of a procedure,
but doen't provide a way to _call_ a procedure using its address. Management
decides that the project is to be done in pure Ada, and forbids use of
assembly language to call a procedure using its address.
>have had some difficulties.  On the project that has not had difficulties,
>the same applies:  the reason for its success has been consistently
>excellent management.
>
>In my direct experience (and despite my own doubts along the way) Ada has been
>a good implementation language for large projects.  What needs to be understood
>is that no language can make up for unresolved management issues.  When
>management issues start to become solved, projects start to make real progress.
>
>The design of the Ada language simplifies the management of the software
>production process considerably.
>
>When used well, the visibility
>structures of the language enable very rapid understanding to be obtained
Are the visibility structures of Ada 83 really any better than those of C++?
Doesn't Ada 83 suffer from the lack of a structure larger than a package,
something like the new C++ namespace?
>of code to which one has had no previous exposure.  My role frequently
>involves system troubleshooting so I value this aspect of the language
>highly.  I know of no other language in large scale use that would be
>as helpful.  (Yes, I have spent many years developing software in 'C').
>
>I see Ada as providing significant benefits in the development of large
>systems.  Having said this, I can see that we are not yet taking proper
>advantage of all that can be gained from the language, with better
>design processes and attendent reduction in rework having particular
Better design methods would help, but watch out for management interpreting
'reduction in rework' to mean 'iterative development is forbidden'.
>scope for useful productivity improvements.
>
>>Brendan Walker
>
>Andrew Lees.

Chris Perrott