Re: Is the Ada World Embarrassed by the Defense Industry?

[Lao Xiao Hai <laoxhai@ix.netcom.com>]

"E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:

> Apparently, national defense, and the U.S. Navy in particular,
> has finally turned toward Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
> solutions after encouraging a commercial computer industry
> for the past 50 years.

An Ada RTE is COTS.

> It is possible to implement reliable applications
> in other programming languages through diligence,
> discipline and exhaustive testing.  It just costs more.
> One can only assume that the commercial developer
> weighed these costs against all of the other costs
> relevant to application program development when
> they decided which programming language(s) to use.

Indeed!!!!!!??????   Most organizations that I see choosing
C++ over Ada have done very little in the way of careful
study.   Certainly no U.S. military organization has thought
this through very carefully.   It is, in fact, quite scary.  An
organization that could not manage a  single-language
policy is under the illusion that it can manage a multiple-
language policy.


> .The problem for the military

> is to test and evaluate all of these applications

> and select the best value.

And which ISO standard validated C++ compiler
will they select.   OOOOOPS!  There aren't any.

> If application program source codes are transferred
> to the military, they must find and/or train programmers
> to modify and maintain that source code.
> It is easier to find and train C and C++ programmers
> than it is to find and train Ada programmers today
> so there is a strong incentive to prefer C or C++ over Ada.

It is easier to find programmers who claim to know C++ than
programmers who claim to know Ada.  Their skill level varies
all over the place and most of them should not be allowed
anywhere within ten miles of the source code.    As for training.
I teach C++ and I teach Ada.  Ada is easier to teach than C++.
Properly taught, Ada is easier for the students to learn.

> A lot can be done to incorporate safety and reliability
> into C and C++ compilers and class libraries
> but these languages are inherently unsafe
> and there is very little that can be done about it
> without changing the languages themselves.

C++ is the peanut brittle of programming languages.  It gets
stuck in your teeth, breaks easily, and cause serious rotting.
Someone once said, "C is its own virus."   This same comment
extends to C++.

Richard Riehle