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,f948976d12c7ee33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-20 14:24:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-pas-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3EF37B71.5060309@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: Boeing and Dreamliner References: <20030619221951073-0500@library.airnews.net> <3EF367AE.8060803@spam.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:21:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.184.8.120 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1056144112 63.184.8.120 (Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:21:52 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:21:52 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39510 Date: 2003-06-20T21:21:52+00:00 List-Id: 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