Re: Boeing and Dreamliner

[Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com>]

Mark Lorenzen wrote:
> 
> But the infamous: "But, we can't find any Ada programmers..."
> argument still sits in its dark and damp corner of a manager's office
> and just waits to be spoken out loud. Sadly.

Even with the cost of training and retaining staff, the business 
decision should still point to Ada.

> 
> And now C++ is used for JSF. So the "If C++ is good enough for the
> worlds most expensive and advanged figther jet, then it surely is good
> enough for a civilian passenger jet" argument will also be used.

JSF is a gov't contract, where more expensive = more profitable, so 
choosing C++ is a good business decision, though a poor technical one. 
Commercial airliner S/W is not that kind of situation. The question 
shouldn't be what language is good enough (since the compiler produces 
machine code, obviously machine code is "good enough"), it's how much it 
costs to achieve the necessary reliability in the language. Machine 
could is orders of magnitude more expensive than C++, and C++ is about 
an order of magnitude more expensive than Ada.

Boeing would have to be pretty stupid to use C++ for its commercial 
airliner S/W. Unfortunately, stupidity is not in short supply.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I unclog my nose towards you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail