Re: Safety-Critical Systems Developed Using C++

[Lao Xiao Hai <laoxhai@ix.netcom.com>]

John Luebs wrote:

>
> Ada reduces error rates! So that's why the DoD abandoned it as fast as
> possible!

1)  The DoD did not abandon Ada.

2)  Ada continues to be used for many important DoD projects.

3)  We continue to teach Ada in the DoD sponsored academic environments such
as West Point,
      USAF Academy, and Naval Postgraduate School.

4)  The DoD did issue a memorandum relaxing the Ada policy in favor of a
broader view
      of language selection.  That memorandum provides for an SEPR (Software
Engineering
      Process Review) that includes selecting a programming language for a
project on the
      basis of its appropriateness for the project being planned.   When
safety-critical is the
      overriding issue, intelligent planners select Ada.   Others, guided not
by technological
      concerns but political ones, may choose something else.

5)  Anyone who would choose C++ of Java for a DoD safety-critical weapon
systems program
     is maknig that choice on the basis of concerns that have nothing to do
with reliability or
     correctness of the technology.

6)  There continue to be good engineers who understand the value of Ada for
weapon systems
      development.   Of course, we do need more, but we are fortunate to still
have a few.

I keep encountering this kind of misinterpretation of DoD policy regarding
Ada.   It seems that even
those who have read Mr. Paige's directive on this subject fail to read it in
its entirety.  All they
see is the relaxing of the mandate, not the continued support for Ada.

Richard Riehle