From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,eb35be86b1c0bdcb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-14 06:33:19 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: THAAD Study on Ada Viability Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:32:43 -0500 Organization: Quadrus Corporation Message-ID: <3A38DA0B.30662DEB@acm.org> References: <90lj4s$8h7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <918u24$8ms$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.b6.bc Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 14 Dec 2000 14:32:17 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3134 Date: 2000-12-14T14:32:17+00:00 List-Id: Ken Garlington wrote: > "Singlespeeder" wrote in message > news:918u24$8ms$1@neptunium.btinternet.com... > : The point is though that the defense industry isn't going to upgrade the > : development environment and move their development wholesale onto these > : suites. Instead they'll stick with overstretched VAX/VMS machines, and an > : environment that may have been hot in 1983 but doesn't cut it in the 21st > : century - certainly not when trying to meet their 21st century timescales. > > I dunno... my company (Lockheed Martin Aero) is moving off of VAXen and onto > other platforms as fast as possible (including legacy programs). We are also > using far more IDEs and upper CASE tools than before. > One of the things to note about defense systems is that they differ dramatically from similar commercial systems in terms of their longevity. A given missile or avionics system can easily be around in some stage of development/maintenance for 20..30 years. (How old is the B52 bomber?) You pick a target processor, development platform, compiler, toolset, etc. in the year 2000 and you may make your first production delivery in 2010. You have to live with those choices because to change over to the latest/greatest technology means a huge cost in regression testing and re-validating the system. I don't think defense companies are against moving to modern tools - as your example of LMA illustrates. I think they just have a harder time doing it than commercial endeavors might. We kind of know that instinctively because we're insiders. Those outside the defense community may not be aware of it. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P. J. O'Rourke ======================================================================