Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

["Michael P. Card" <michael.p.card@lmco.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2871 bytes --]

Mike-

I am on a project now which is mixed Ada and C++. I find it frightening
that many defense contractors are pushing C++ for critical defense systems
like the one I am working on now, though thankfully I am on a team which is
working the Ada part. C++ is, IMO, an extremely poor choice for defense
systems for many reasons, not the least of which include portability,
readability, maintainability, and memory corruption due to invalid type
casts and over-writing array bounds. As far as I am concerned, there is no
financial or technical justification for using C++ on these kinds of
projects.

IMO, the only reason it is chosen by mgmt and some engineers is that most
of us remember the big defense downturn of the late 80's and early 90's. If
you want to go work for Microsoft or a dot com, or if you want your resume
ready just in case, it is a lot better to be able to say "I managed a team
of 50 C++ programmers and we developed a 40 KSLOC distributed real-time C++
application" or "As a S/W engineer at company X, I wrote 10 KSLOC of C++ on
my last project." Because of this "resume factor," engineers and managers
in the defense industry are willing (albeit often unintentional)
collaborators on the move to C++.

When you couple this with amazing trends like the preference for Windows NT
as the information infrastructure for the CVN-77 (new Navy carrier), you
can begin to believe that it would be in America's best interest for the
government to pay M$ to re-write Windows, Office, Access, Project and SQL
Server in Ada. The way I see it, M$ would like it since they could improve
their products at taxpayer expense, consumers would get more reliable
software, and the DoD would get a better infrastructure for the CVN-77 and
future projects! (tongue-in-cheek here)

- Mike

mjsilva@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <39FE461D.275F1363@ix.netcom.com>,
>   Lao Xiao Hai <laoxhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm still interested in hearing if any of those who have switched from
> Ada to The Radiant Future of language X are finding that there's
> trouble in paradise X.  It seems that if there is trouble in paradise X
> then we Ada advocates should be sure and document it for the benefit of
> others who are considering such a switch, or who are simply evaluating
> languages.  OTOH, if everybody is happy as a clam using X then I guess
> we need to rethink some of our assumptions.
>
> Mike
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Michael P. Card --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 344 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Card;Michael
tel;fax:315-456-0441
tel;work:315-456-3022
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Lockheed Martin ;Ocean, Radar, and Sensor Systems
version:2.1
email;internet:michael.p.card@lmco.com
title:Principal Software Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Electronics Park=0D=0ABuilding 6, Room 201;Syracuse;NY;13221;USA
fn:Michael Card
end:vcard