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: 103376,5faad1722103f6a7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <40B888E0.5040707@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics References: <90Stc.15309$be.3117@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <40b86431$0$186$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:58:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.23.176 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1085835521 209.165.23.176 (Sat, 29 May 2004 05:58:41 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 05:58:41 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:908 Date: 2004-05-29T12:58:41+00:00 List-Id: They're doing this stuff to DO-178b and for high criticality items, this calls out for rather severe levels of structural testing. Basically it means you need to cover all the paths in the software (more complex than this really, but this is the short version) Even with C++, this level of test coverage ought to insure safety of flight. Its just that it will likely cost more and take longer. Of course if you've allowed for it in the schedule, you won't slip the schedule. That depends on your experience with development of similar systems. If Ada has a demonstrable edge in this area (cost and schedule) then a competitor ought to be able to bid the job lower, wouldn't you think? So where are the Ada shops willing to take on the development and offer a lower price? Why isn't there some embedded system development company that is agressively going after these projects and offering Ada with a cost advantage? If they had a bunch of reusable components for the problem domain and they were DO-178b certified, they'd have all that leverage to bring to the table too. We can claim that Ada is superior and bitch because someone else won't see that and use it and call them boneheads for doing so. Alternately, if we really believed in its superiority, we'd have companies offering an Ada alternative and be out-competing the other bidders with low cost/high quality alternatives. I guess Ada needs a little more entrepreneurial spirit if it expects to get in the door on these things. ;-) MDC Per Dalgas Jakobsen wrote: > > Yes I would, because that thing has to be validated, tested, etc., etc. > > But I would hate to pay the bill, and I would definitely hate to be the > project manager that has to tell the bosses that it won't complete on > schedule. > > Per > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================