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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-18 17:01:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr15.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3BCF6D89.4B31FBA8@flash.net> From: Gary Scott Reply-To: scottg@flash.net Organization: Home X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-DIAL (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: is Ada dying? References: <9prl5701m0v@drn.newsguy.com> <3bc16b42.3799903@news.demon.co.uk> <3BC20BC2.1F92FADB@adaworks.com> <3bc2b25a.1919900@news.demon.co.uk> <3BC31374.F9086B7E@lmtas.lmco.com> <3bc4038e.1810833@news.demon.co.uk> <3BCE32B2.96CE83C5@flash.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.48.222.69 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr15.news.prodigy.com 1003449632 ST000 64.48.222.69 (Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:00:32 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:00:32 EDT X-UserInfo1: OPUUPIWCA[_S@UXXOZOTOQMAPJYREQLIQQ]ZMVMHQAVTUZ]CLNTCPFK[WDXDHV[K^FCGJCJLPF_D_NCC@FUG^Q\DINVAXSLIFXYJSSCCALP@PB@\OS@BITWAH\CQZKJMMD^SJA^NXA\GVLSRBD^M_NW_F[YLVTWIGAXAQBOATKBBQRXECDFDMQ\DZFUE@\JM Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:32 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14926 Date: 2001-10-19T00:00:32+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <3BCE32B2.96CE83C5@flash.net>, Gary Scott says... > > > >F-16 is still mostly Jovial. Newer systems were moving toward Ada, now > >moving toward C before even getting to production (some > >configurations)... > > As long as they are moving backwards, why don't they skip a few steps and stay > with Jovial? > > --- > T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html > > No trees were killed in the sending of this message. > However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. Suits me since the superior avionics architecture (e.g. distributed processors, less likely to suffer catastrophic damage in event of a hit, can change one function without monkeying with unrelated functions) is primarily Jovial. Also, although I work both arenas, the Jovial code is much more stable, easier to change without introducing intractable errors, etc. than the Ada versions (so far). Only problems are related to insufficient memory size and processor throughput. But I'm resigned to the inevitable that it will only get worse in the future. -- Gary Scott mailto:scottg@flash.net mailto:webmaster@fortranlib.com http://www.fortranlib.com Support the GNU Fortran G95 Project: http://g95.sourceforge.net