Re: Ada's Slide To Oblivion ...

[Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>]

Jerry Petrey wrote:

> How true Richard.  Here at Raytheon Missile Systems, all our new missile
> software is going to C++.  The managers listen to the young engineers who
> only know or want to work with C++. There are a few older program like the one
> I'm on that uses Ada (thank goodness).  Most of these were started by ex-C
> programmers and it is amazing how much like C their Ada code is.
> I keep fighting for more Ada usage but I keep getting those same old
> arguments - the tools are more expensive, Ada is dead and won't be supported
> in the future, C++ programmers are easier to get, ... ad nauseam.
> Yet they keep stressing how important it is that these missiles work
> right every time - it is a frustrating battle to make them understand.

I ran into a Raytheon engineer at a conference last year who proudly
announced that one of his responsibilities was to "rip out all that old
Ada code and replace it with C++."   I somehow managed to contain
my fury at such an idiotic concept, and tried to engage him in a dialogue
about this.   During that dialogue, he admitted that Ada is probably a
better language, but everything anyone could do in Ada, could also
be done in C++.   Since C++ was more popular, it made sense to
him that Ada was obsolete.   "In a few years you won't even be
able to get an Ada compiler,"  is the current silliness being
promoted by those who are have decided to "rip out all that old
Ada code ... "

So, even as we hear them recite the refrain, "Ada is probably a better language,"
we hear also the bumper sticker slogan, "It can be done as well in C++."

The cost of converting Ada 83 code to C++ will be greater than that of
converting to Ada 95.   The long term cost of maintaining the C++ code
will be substantially greater than maintaining the equivalent Ada code.
The ability to port C++ code to the next generation of hardware will be
greater than porting ISO standard Ada to that hardware.   If those who
are touting the economics rationale for using C++ instead of Ada were to
actually do an economic analysis of this decision, they would likely be
shocked by the probably cost of C++ over Ada.

The claim is that anything one can do in Ada one can also do in C++. This
is probably true, just as anything you can do in C++ someone else can do
in Assembler.    It is a matter of selecting the right tool for the right job,
and Ada is the right tool for jobs where safety and dependability are the
key factors.   I raised this issue.   "Oh, we simply avoid using those parts
of C++ that are unsafe."     This is one of those arguments that cannot be
won through reason.   Once the decision is made, regardless of how absurd
it might be,  the decision-makers are comitted to it.

Many centuries ago, a King was leading his forces against the great Sultan,
Saladin.    The journey to the battle was short and the King ordered the
oxen-drawn water carts to remain where they were since it would be
too slow to bring them along.   The journey took longer than expected and
the King's advisors suggested they return to get the water carts since thirst
was beginning to become a problem for the knights.   This King was not
to be told he made a bad decision and ordered his troops to press on.  The
Sultan decimated the King's troops, thereby turning the tide of history such
that, even today we are reaping the rewards of that Twelfth Century King's
stubborn tenacity to an ill-considered decision.    The problems we will see
as the result of the decision to abandon Ada in favor of more error-prone
tools will not be immediate.   They will be problems that will persist
long after those who have made them have gone on to other jobs or
retired.   Not only do such decisions fail to use our tax dollars well,
they risk little disasters that probably would not occur if more sound decisions
had been made in the first place.   At this point, pride will not let the decision
makers turn back for water.

Richard Riehle