Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do?

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com>]

Ehud Lamm wrote:
> Marin David Condic <mcondic.nospam@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org...
> > I'm not sure why you think most of the posters here are amateur
> programmers?
...SNIP...
> In fact, I think one problem Ada had (note past tense) was lack of amateurs.
> As opposed to such "cool" languages like C++ and Java (and in the old day
> Turbo Pascal), most hobbyist never hear of Ada, or hear misleading info (see
> Jargon File).
> I think these days things are changing a bit (I am judging mainly from this
> group,  AdaPower etc.)
> 
> I think that if we succeed in making the Ada community larger, by attracting
> hobbyists, the "real world" situation will improve too.
> (I still haven't found the time to write "Why should Hackers Love Ada?"
> If anyone wnats to write it, feel free...)
> 
> Ehud

First of all, I like the idea of the book. It should be written.

I think that people that truly love to write software, usually enjoy the
satisfaction of doing something well. I believe that Ada makes this possible,
since the compiler is able to eliminate so many mundane, and even stupid
errors that we do not want to expend our free time on. In this way, Ada
allows the computer to work for YOU, instead of the other way round.

The compiler also does this effortlessly at runtime as well (with the
appropriate checks enabled). Finally, the exceptions point to the source
of the problem immediately (in most cases, to the module and line #).

(Advocacy mode on..)

If you subscribe to the Linux, FreeBSD and Windows security advisory 
mailing lists, you will be made painfully aware of how insecure today's 
really software is. As a person with over 20 years of programming experience, 
it just seems to me, that this is not a good sign!  Our industry has not
learned any lessons here, and we continue to build.

This is serious, because we are now building upon several layers of
previously built software. Anyone that builds a tower knows that the
foundation needs to be firm and secure. Yet today, we continue to build
upon faulty foundations. (Consider MOTIF, on Intrinsics, on X11, on the
C libraries, on the kernel, --or-- the instabilities of your 
not-so-favourite Windows platform).

Ada95 it seems, provides a glimmer of hope. Many people claim that we
don't write "mission-critical" software for every day use.

    I beg to disagree!

As soon as you connect your computer to the Internet, you now are very
concerned about the security of your system and it's files (incidentally,
it is now possible for a virus to issue IDE commands to the newer IDE
disk drives that will cause them to destroy themselves: this means that
a hacker now has the ability to destroy some of your hardware as well).

If you don't consider your files, your privacy and your hardware worth
protecting, then I might agree that you don't need mission-critical
software. While people won't die if my site gets hacked, to ME, it is very
imporant that it does not get hacked-- to me, it is mission-critical.

(Although if someone hacks my site, destroys my diskdrive, people
and pets could die from smoke or a fire caused by a damaged disk drive).

I would like to see the Free Software Foundation start developing with Ada95.
The GNU Hurd has been slow to develop, but I would love to see a new
effort started in Ada95 instead, with associated tools written in the
same. The OS would have a "mission-critical" mission as it affects
security.  There was someone that has announced that they
are developing an Ada based kernel, and I wish them luck. However, it
is such an ambitious undertaking, that I wish for the day when the FSF
would take it up (or contribute).

I think if the FSF were to adopt Ada95 for more development, this would
help bring Ada credibility to those that have yet to give it a chance.

Richard Stallman, are you listening?

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg