Re: Joint Strike Fighter

[john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe)]

On 2 Nov 2001 08:16:20 -0800, ian0kerr@my-deja.com (Ian) wrote:

>> I don't find
>> >anything that we need from Ada and the available tools that C++ would
>> >provide.
> 
>> I'm confused by this comment, can you please explain it in slightly
>> different words?
>
>Ada provides us with everything we need. C++ does not have an
>advantage for us.

So what you meant was that there is nothing that C++ would provide
that you don't get from Ada and the available tools.

>> Wow - I Had no idea there was a process in place in your department.
>
>If you want a copy of the above, email me your snail address. :-;

It's alright - I'm not that interested, but thanks anyway.

>Well as Ron D. wrote a process, a while back, for your department why
>would you think we would be different?

Ron D? First I've heard of it. As far as I'm aware we were way ahead
on the project lifecycle and nothing had been done like this for our
department.

>> I thought BAE *and* AeI were having
>> problems recruiting good, permanent Ada engineers because:
 
>The turn over is quite low and we get replacements quickly. 

Contract or permanent? I don't know of anyone who started there as a
permie to do Ada work, and even if they did, the chances are they were
told they would be doing something else!

>> 1) They don't pay enough
>Money is not everything especially if the project is not the usual
>shambles!

True, but a reasonable amount is required and, to be honest, for what
AeI were offering contractors to go permanent it wouldn't be worth
getting out of bed for!

>> That's good - we never got *any* training on the rig team!

>You should have asked your management as we had problems spending all
>the training money one year. Probably because other departments did
>not encourage training.

Rig development had *no* budget for training. Any training given to
members of the team was through general training budget, so wasn't
allowed to be spent on contractors.
 
>> - and it will
>> certainly be more reliable if you have to use C++,
> Even my C++ course teacher thought that C++ was a dangerous language.

Did he say it *is* a dangerous language, or it *can be* a dangerous
language. There is a difference - in untrained hands it is still easy
enough to write highly unreliable Ada programs!

>> to use Ada trained
>> developers to do the job than those who have only ever used C/C++
>> based languages!
>
>I hope you are happer where you are now.

Oh I am!!