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

[John Kern <jkern3@visteon.com>]

James Rogers wrote:
> 
> "E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
> >

[[snip]]

> This is also nonesense. It is easier to find C and C++ programmers
> than Ada programmers. It is definitely NOT easier to train C and
> C++ programmers than Ada programmers.
> 
> Among other things, you must train C and C++ programmers to avoid the
> numerous dangerous features of the language, particularly when
> developing
> real-time system. You can spend less time teaching Ada, without multiple
> class hours spent on avoiding dangerous language features.

I find it somewhat amusing that in the automotive arena, there is a
whole industry of products available to keep the typical C programmer
from screwing up.  Our software process recommends, among the typical
things, 'Safer C' training from Les Hatton, MISRA C coding guidelines,
static analysis tools like QA C, OSEK compliant RTOSes for standardized
kernel access, and UML tools that help us draw pictures of what we would
have already done with Ada packages anyway.  Also, there are the
individual compiler issues and training, and the misguided attempts to
achieve reuse by adding copious precompiler directives, etc.

Have you ever noticed that whenever you service your car at a
dealership, there is almost always a 'silent' software Technical
Bulletin (recall) that has to be done?