Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>]

Jim Rogers wrote:

> This is a wonderful article. It gives support to the idea that
> off the shelf hardware and software is more reliable and better
> than Mil Spec hardware and software.

We must be a little careful about sour grapes.   Of course they used
a language other than Ada.   There is no Ada compiler available for
the CE operating system.   If there were, it would have been just as
successful, maybe even more so, than the language they used.

This is not a language issue.   It is a competency issue.   Apparently
the Raytheon engineers simply lacked the compentence to do the
job they were supposed to do.    Also,  the "old government programming
language" was probably Ada 83, not Ada 95.   I am often amazed to see how
many DoD contractors have still avoided upgrading their software
development processes to Ada 95 and still use Ada 83.

Richard Riehle

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Note that the Silicon Valley solution does not work properly for
> 10 days of use. Clearly, the problem the Silicon Valley gurus had
> is that they do not understand "the old government" programming
> language.
>
> What makes Windows CE more reliable than a true real time OS?
> What makes off-the-shelf software work better under DoD
> environments. The answer is simple. Their system almost works
> and they have avoided most of the reliability requirements.
> I also suspect they have avoided DoD frequency requirements
> as well as DoD message specifications such as the Joint Variable
> Message Format. Wait until they get to the system integration
> tests where the Land Warrior must communicate with systems that
> actually follow DoD specifications. Success may be spelled
> differently at that point.
>
> Isn't Silicon Valley arrogance beautiful? They know all that is
> useful. Anything they do not know must be useless.
>
> Jim Rogers
> Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
>
> Ken Garlington wrote:
>
> > (A quick excerpt from a recent USA Today article:)
> >
> > "The early Land Warrior software rarely worked... To troubleshoot, in early
> > 1999 Jette brought in high-tech consultants Exponent, a Silicon Valley firm
> > that studies engineering and structural failures and accidents. The firm
> > felt that Raytheon had followed Army specs for the project too closely. The
> > old prototype had to be trashed and a new computer and radio system built...
> > The Silicon Valley engineers slapped together a crude model in three months.
> > They went to retailers Best Buy and Fry's Electronics and bought several
> > cheap, off-the-shelf products, including Microsoft Windows CE software and a
> > wireless card to allow Land Warrior computers to send data. The most
> > critical technical step: They wrote the software in common programming
> > language used by most software engineers, rather than using old government
> > programming language, as Raytheon had.... Soldiers say the newest Land
> > Warrior is the best version yet... Its Microsoft Windows 2000 software still
> > has bugs but is nearing the project goal of 10 days of use without breaking
> > down."
> >
> > (The full article can be found at:)
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm
> >
> >
> >