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: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-26 12:46:45 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Lao Xiao Hai Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:43:20 -0800 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3A71E168.FC629B19@ix.netcom.com> References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net> <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br> <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br> <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <937kc7$ssq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93c0e9$4u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e33l$tfu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93ekmo$a14$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A6357CF.B80C3666@ix.netcom.com> <3A636F2A.F988973@averstar.com> <3A6CEA26.90EACF3D@ix.netcom.com> <94kkme$amg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.b8.14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 26 Jan 2001 20:45:40 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4573 Date: 2001-01-26T20:45:40+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > In article <3A6CEA26.90EACF3D@ix.netcom.com>, > Lao Xiao Hai wrote: > > > > > > Tucker Taft wrote: > > > > > Perhaps you are talking about the THAAD? That is a > different > > > system, though clearly related to the Patriot in terms of > > > mission. It is being done in C++ as far as I know. > > > > > > > ... With luck, Ada will prevail. > > > > > > I believe THAAD has settled on C++. > > > > Clearly an irresponsible decision on the part of somebody. > > That may be a little unfair. Most choices of programming > languages are made not on the basis of technical excellence > of the language, but rather on the basis of familiarity with > a particular language. That's not necessarily irresponsible, > since familiarity is an important factor. Perhaps I am being unfair. However, the current THAAD software is programmed in Ada 83. I am not sure that slouching toward C++ is as easy as transitioning existing software to a new version of the same language. Am I wrong? Is it easier to convert Ada 83 code to C++ or to Ada 95? Then again, is it unreasonable to expect the decision for a major Dod weapon system to be made on the basis of technical excellence rather than on the basis of someone's personal preference for a language that does more to enhance their resume than to do the job right? If I am being unfair, so be it. This is warfighting software. When it comes to war, there is no such thing as fair. Richard Riehle