Re: ADA Professionalism Document

[savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage)]

> 
> 
>     The problem I have with the document (and it seems, the problem that 
>     several respondants have with the document):
> 
> 	Its existence implies that ADA is so different from other lang-
> 	uages that it completely redefines the standard of software
> 	professionalism.
> 
>     ADA is different from other languages in a number of significant ways,
>     the most important being the possibility of directly implementing both
>     abstract data structures, multi-tasking, and (at least theoretically) 
>     true parallel processing.  Now, object-oriented, "architecturally pure"
>     programming is not only possible, but directly supported by a language.
> 
>     ...
>     However, extending it into a complete model of software professionalism 
>     is ridiculous.  (Even this paragraph has a couple of big if's).
> 
> 					Ralph Mack
> 					Applied Technology Software/Systems
> 					Digital Equipment Corp.
> 
> 	"Any ideas expressed here are just my jaw working overtime, and
> 	may not represent rational thought, much less the point of view
> 	of Digital Equipment Corporation..."

I think that Ralph has hit one of the nails on the head.  I think
that before this thing goes any further, we should find out more
about the root of this matter.  It may be just some joke.  (Perhaps
perpetrated by the same person(s) that ran the article on making
C functions pass parameters by address rather than by value in the
Cray implementation.  That article generated a whole lot of net
traffic until the original poster(s) fessed up just so he/she/they
could read their beloved net.lang.c newsgroup again.)  If this is
not a joke, then I can personally only imagine that some fevered
DoD person with nothing else to do dreamed this up after celebrating
something a lot too much.

First of all, the idea of any "technical requirements" seems
ludicrous to me.  If a text file (or some set of text files) is
compiled by a verified Ada compiler, then it is an Ada program
program whether it is programmed by John Barnes or by a rotton
banana dropped on a keyboard.  Now if the DoD wants to make
sure that the programmers working on its projects are competent,
(so: competent programmers + Ada => correct code) it should
probably make the the same type of contractual requirements of
its contractors that it does to assure that other types of
engineers are competent in their fields.  Devising some sort of
Professional Software Engineering license may be the way to go.
(Actually, revamping the whole Professional Engineering licensing
system may be the way to go, from what I understand--which is
precious little, so never mind.) However, focusing the licensing
on Ada is short-sighted and narrow-minded.  (Unless, of course,
the DoD intends to either keep Ada as the DoD standard for all
eternity, or always revamp Ada and keep calling it Ada even when
SW technology advances make the new version completely unlike the
what people originally got licensed on....).  

Second, the idea of using a "code of ethics" to ensure "professional
conduct" on the part of Ada programmers (and in particular those
working on DoD projects) seems to be another idea straight out of
the Department of Redundancy.  If you want to make sure that the
engineers working on a contract are not going to screw the govern-
ment over, you make the project classified and force the company to
pay for background checks to clear everyone involved in the project
for working at that classification level, and you use the laws
already in place (such as those regarding the travel of such persons
overseas) to make it less likely that anyone will try to mess up
the "security of the United States".

In short, professional licenses for SW Engineers may be a good idea,
but not strictly in the context of Ada.  If it is strictly in the
context of Ada, it will basically be treated as a joke by both the
companies that hire such people and by the people that get the license.
So why do I bother with all of the above??  Simple, I think that my
tax dollars are at stake here.  Maybe only a few cents a year, but
it all adds up!!  Some goof-ball has the wrong idea, and is going to
SPEND **MY** MONEY proving it wrong!

					Lowell Savage

					I don't yet get paid enough for
					my work, so my employer has no
					right to my opinions.

	Oh yeah, Ada is a trademark of the U.S. DoD....