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: 103376,2def9aa85afa5d22 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-30 22:34:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Joint Strike Fighter Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:38:34 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3BDF9C6A.C25520C5@adaworks.com> References: <3BDCE159.39F6D422@adaworks.com> <11bf7180.0110290311.4d8d6f04@posting.google.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.c5.47 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 31 Oct 2001 06:34:30 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15463 Date: 2001-10-31T06:34:30+00:00 List-Id: Ian wrote: > Richard Riehle wrote in message news:<3BDCE159.39F6D422@adaworks.com>... > > Now that LMCO has been awarded the contract for > > JSF, does anyone know if the original plan to do the > > software in Ada remains unchanged? > > > [trawl?] This may have seemed like a "trawl" but it was just an inquiry based on earlier information. > I doubt this plan got very far. The current LMCO plan is to reuse most > of the X-35 work in this new SDD phase. C++ code will be produced in 3 > phases over 10.5 years. This is being amended for a 2008 introduction. > The size estimate is 4 to 6 M SLOC. C++. It is really sad when a system that requires high reliability and dependability ends of being programmed in a language as brittle and error-prone as C++. > Where C++ will be rejected for certification reasons in flight > critical boxes I expect Ada will be used. That's somewhat comforting. > Either the theory that Ada has superior economics over the whole > life-cycle process is wrong or somebody goofed up. It would be > speculation to say who did. LMCO for getting their fingers burnt with > Ada83 on the F-22, DoD pushing Faster, Cheaper, Better; or too many > people demanding to be able to write C++. Economics over dependability? I know there are a lot of really bright software professionals at LMCO, most of them, in fact. The decision to use C++ no doubt has justification that we will never understand, especially those of us who know both Ada and C++ pretty well. I guess economics, in the long run, is an important factor. It is a little disappointing to see Ada eased out of yet another major DoD application -- and just as we are noticing an increase in interest in Ada among some of our better trained military officers. These things occur in cycles, I suppose. Recently, I noticed a project that is purported to be starting-up with Jovial as the intended implementation language. Of course, Jovial has an excellent track record for weapon systems design, so that makes some sense. Richard Riehle