Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[michael_p_card]

Hello everyone (this is in response to Mike Silva, Richard Riehle et
al)-

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. 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. RE: the "high cost of training people in Ada," I know of an
excellent source of Ada training we have used in the past at about
$1K/student. I would wager we have spent far more than that per C++
programmer chasing bugs caused by uninitialized data structures, bad
type casts, overwritten array bounds etc.

IMO, the only reason C++ 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


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[Michael P. Card]

[-- 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

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[Tom Hargraves]

The US company I work for are currently bidding for a multi million $ US
Navy project and specifying java as the implementation language. This proves
there is no logic in this world, and is the reason I am learning Java. Such
is life...

I am just thankful they didn't choose C++

Tom H.


<michael_p_card@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tv04t$n80$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello everyone (this is in response to Mike Silva, Richard Riehle et
> al)-
>
> 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. 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. RE: the "high cost of training people in Ada," I know of an
> excellent source of Ada training we have used in the past at about
> $1K/student. I would wager we have spent far more than that per C++
> programmer chasing bugs caused by uninitialized data structures, bad
> type casts, overwritten array bounds etc.
>
> IMO, the only reason C++ is chosen by mgmt and some engineers is that
> most of us remember the big defense downturn of the late 80's and early
> 90's. If you want to go work for Microsoft or a dot com, or if you want
> your resume ready just in case, it is a lot better to be able to say "I
> managed a team of 50 C++ programmers and we developed a 40 KSLOC
> distributed real-time C++ application" or "As a S/W engineer at company
> X, I wrote 10 KSLOC of C++ on my last project." Because of this "resume
> factor," engineers and managers in the defense industry are willing
> (albeit often unintentional) collaborators on the move to C++.
>
> When you couple this with amazing trends like the preference for Windows
> NT as the information infrastructure for the CVN-77 (new Navy carrier),
> you can begin to believe that it would be in America's best interest for
> the government to pay M$ 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
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[Pat Rogers]

"E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin@netwood.net> wrote in message
news:3A04C67F.FEB1D90A@netwood.net...
<snip>
> If you can find an Ada compiler which emits byte code for a JVM,
> you may be able to convince them that they should implement
> safety critical applications in Ada instead of Java.
> Otherwise, you should probably just forget about Ada.

I'm curious about something, based upon this and other posts by you. I
know you've done some work in C++ and have submitted posts on the
subject in other newsgroups.  What is your professional experience
with Ada?

pat rogers
progers@classwide.com

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[Jeff Stimson]

Most of my career has been based on writing applications in Ada.  That has
changed recently since absolutley no one
wants anything other than C++ right now.  I've just ramped up in C++ and am
doing projects with it.  I am not new to C since
I have also used that for a number of years.

My God.
Is everyone blind to the inherent dangers in programming with C++ ?  My last
project in Ada (about 20K SLOC) was delivered to the
customer about 8 months ago with no defects.  That's zero, zip, 0, nadda.
We have heard nothing back from them in terms of
problems or bugs.  I know for a fact that the current project (approx same
size) in C++ will not turn out the same.

I really despair at the dissapearance of Ada, and it is going away.  We can
fight and scream all we want but it is not being taught
in colleges or universities, it is not being promoted by companies that have
influence, and it still has a stigma with being 'that military
language'.

Sigh.


"Michael P. Card" <michael.p.card@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3A02DB88.8A4232D1@lmco.com...
> 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.
>

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Jeff Stimson wrote:

> Most of my career has been based on writing applications in Ada.
> That has changed recently
> since absolutely no one wants anything other than C++ right now.
> I've just ramped up in C++ and am doing projects with it.
> I am not new to C since I have also used that for a number of years.
>
> My God.
> Is everyone blind to the inherent dangers in programming with C++?
> My last project in Ada (about 20K SLOC)
> was delivered to the customer about 8 months ago with no defects.
> That's zero, zip, 0, nadda.
> We have heard nothing back from them in terms of problems or bugs.
> I know for a fact that the current project (approx. same size) in C++
> will not turn out the same.
>
> I really despair at the disappearance of Ada, and it is going away.
> We can fight and scream all we want
> but it is not being taught in colleges or universities,
> it is not being promoted by companies that have influence,
> and it still has a stigma with being 'that military language'.

Ada has made you lazy and careless.
You can write programs in C that are just as safe
by the simple application of super-human diligence.

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[Robert Love]

>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Stimson <jstimson@home.com> writes:


    Jeff> My God.  Is everyone blind to the inherent dangers in
    Jeff> programming with C++ ?  My last project in Ada (about 20K
    Jeff> SLOC) was delivered to the customer about 8 months ago with
    Jeff> no defects.  That's zero, zip, 0, nadda.  We have heard
    Jeff> nothing back from them in terms of problems or bugs.  I know
    Jeff> for a fact that the current project (approx same size) in
    Jeff> C++ will not turn out the same.


Don't tell us, tell your customer.  Yeah, I know you don't go talking
bad about mgmt decisions to the cusotmer but you can find ways to
point this out so the customer uncovers this himself.

-- 
=============================================================
| Support Signature Minimalism                              |
=============================================================

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[David C. Hoos, Sr.]

JGNAT, along with some papers on it is freely available at
ftp://ftp.cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/jgnat/

E. Robert Tisdale <edwin@netwood.net> wrote in message
news:3A04F336.B780D887@netwood.net...
> Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
> > > If you can find an Ada compiler which emits byte code for a
> > > JVM,
> > > you may be able to convince them that they should implement
> > > safety critical applications in Ada instead of Java.
> > > Otherwise, you should probably just forget about Ada.
> >
> > JGNAT from Ada Core Technologies is such a system ....
> >
> > Robert Dewar
> > Ada Core Technologies
> > www.gnat.com
>
> I only found a short announcement
>
>     Ada Core Technologies and ACT Europe
>     announce JGNAT Professional release 1.1a. JGNAT Professional,
>     the Ada 95 development environment for the Java platform,
>     is a port of the GNAT Ada 95 technology to the Java environment.
>     JGNAT supports the development of both applications and applets.
>
>     JGNAT comprises a compiler generating Java bytecode
>     fully compatible with Java virtual machines
>     conforming to Sun's specification (JDK 1.1 and above),
>     and a set of tools to aid in developing Ada programs for the Java
platform.
>     Contact sales@gnat.com for more information or contact:
>
> at
>
>     http://www.gnat.com/
>
> by clicking on
>
>     Announcing JGNAT Pro release 1.1a
>

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[Jeff Carter]

"E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
> Ada has made you lazy and careless.
> You can write programs in C that are just as safe
> by the simple application of super-human diligence.

This is a great quotation. I wish every manager who was deciding to use
C/++ in a mission/safety critical application had to memorize it.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!"
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Tom Hargraves wrote:

> The US company I work for are currently bidding
> for a multi million $ U.S. Navy project and
> specifying java as the implementation language.
> This proves there is no logic in this world,
> and is the reason I am learning Java.

Are you sure?

> Such is life...
>
> I am just thankful they didn't choose C++

In the comp.lang.c++ newsgroup,
Subject: Re: C++ Interpreter,
David Forrai <d.forrai-@-ieee.org> wrote:

> There is a C++ virtual machine in development called Internet C++.
> I have no comment/experience with this system.
> You can get info at
>
>     http://members.xoom.com/icvmcpp/

The idea is to compile the Java source code to "byte code"
that can execute on any platform
which supports a Java Virtual Machine (JVM).

If you can find an Ada compiler which emits byte code for a JVM,
you may be able to convince them that they should implement
safety critical applications in Ada instead of Java.
Otherwise, you should probably just forget about Ada.

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[Robert Dewar]

In article <3A04C67F.FEB1D90A@netwood.net>,
  "E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin@netwood.net> wrote:
> If you can find an Ada compiler which emits byte code for a
> JVM,
> you may be able to convince them that they should implement
> safety critical applications in Ada instead of Java.
> Otherwise, you should probably just forget about Ada.


JGNAT from Ada Core Technologies is such a system ....

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
www.gnat.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
> > If you can find an Ada compiler which emits byte code for a
> > JVM,
> > you may be able to convince them that they should implement
> > safety critical applications in Ada instead of Java.
> > Otherwise, you should probably just forget about Ada.
>
> JGNAT from Ada Core Technologies is such a system ....
>
> Robert Dewar
> Ada Core Technologies
> www.gnat.com

I only found a short announcement

    Ada Core Technologies and ACT Europe
    announce JGNAT Professional release 1.1a. JGNAT Professional,
    the Ada 95 development environment for the Java platform,
    is a port of the GNAT Ada 95 technology to the Java environment.
    JGNAT supports the development of both applications and applets.

    JGNAT comprises a compiler generating Java bytecode
    fully compatible with Java virtual machines
    conforming to Sun's specification (JDK 1.1 and above),
    and a set of tools to aid in developing Ada programs for the Java platform.
    Contact sales@gnat.com for more information or contact:

at

    http://www.gnat.com/

by clicking on

    Announcing JGNAT Pro release 1.1a

Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects

[John Griffiths]

Question : has the (any,all) JVM been validated for safety critical
applications?

TTFN John

"Robert Dewar" <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u2o3d$hft$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A04C67F.FEB1D90A@netwood.net>,
>   "E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin@netwood.net> wrote:
> > If you can find an Ada compiler which emits byte code for a
> > JVM,
> > you may be able to convince them that they should implement
> > safety critical applications in Ada instead of Java.
> > Otherwise, you should probably just forget about Ada.
<snip/>