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: 103376,3d6589e7b2c60444 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-04 19:28:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3EB5CC51.1060609@spam.com> From: Jeffrey Carter Organization: jrcarter commercial-at acm [period | full stop] org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: employment with ada References: <626e8ae.0305011636.5e899da3@posting.google.com> <4mo7bvc2n70k6eikm3muu2965nbo3m77ov@4ax.com> <3EB415CB.6D97B14D@adaworks.com> <3EB42808.20706@spam.com> <3EB5B19D.96252B96@adaworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 02:28:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.184.9.209 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1052101700 63.184.9.209 (Sun, 04 May 2003 19:28:20 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 19:28:20 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36949 Date: 2003-05-05T02:28:20+00:00 List-Id: Richard Riehle wrote: > Jeffrey Carter wrote: > >>Richard Riehle wrote: >> >>>... It [using a subset of C] will cost them more in the long run ... >> >>Here we probably see the real business case. The longer and more >>expensive the software is, the more profit the company makes, under >>typical large defense software contracts. > > I would be the last person to attribute such nefarious motives to a > company as respectable as LMCO. My guess is that those who > made the decision to abandon Ada did so with the best of intentions, > with intellectual honesty, and with honorable expectations. I know > many of the LMCO software engineers and respect their business > ethics. This does not change the fact that I believe they came to > a wrong conclusion regarding Ada. > > Also, and very important, I believe that they will strive to do the > very best software they can using the tools they have selected. We > can disagree about conclusions without casting doubts about someone's > honor. I have seen too many large defense contracts in the US, with a number of large defense contractors, in which everything is done to make the SW as expensive as possible, and efforts to make the SW less expensive are not allowed to succeed, to attribute it to anything other than a well developed ability by these companies to find the saddle point between maximizing profit and not antagonizing the customer too much. These companies ARE in business to make money, and the quality of the product is only of importance as it affects their profit. It can only be because the customer does not know any better that this conduct is allowed to continue. It may be that those who reached the decision to use C had the best of intentions and believe they made the correct choice, but given the level of FUD in their presentation I have my doubts (NO universities in the US teaching Ada?). I suspect that if the study had been seen going in the direction of recommending the use of Ada pressure would have been brought to reach a different conclusion. I'm sorry that I cannot be as optimistic about this as you, but experience has made me cynical. -- Jeff Carter "Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time." Monty Python & the Holy Grail