Re: The return of Ada95

[crispen@hiwaay.net (Bob Crispen)]

KMays@msn.com (Kenneth Mays) wrote:

>Boeing is heading toward C++ future development in their avionic 
>systems. I'm sure they will support Ada95 if their programmers want 
>to, but first lets find a industry-standarized Ada95 compiler that 
>everybody can use.

Since we're both writing from home, there'll be no mistake about our
seeming to represent our various organizations.  Boeing is no more a 
monolithic organization than the Air Force is.  Eglin doesn't have all

the same values as Wright Pat and Boeing Huntsville doesn't have the 
same values as Boeing Commercial Airplanes (or so it might seem -- I'm

not speaking for my organization!).

I will tell you one thing for free, though.  Thanks to you guys and 
similar Army folks, we had so much Ada code lying around that when it 
came time to write a "quick, dirty and cheap" (I quote the exact words

of a person in charge of this part of the software) hardware in the 
loop driver for something we're working on in the commercial space 
domain, it became instantly clear that the cheapest, easiest way to go

was to do it in Ada, even though we had to teach one of our people how

to write Ada and CGI.

In fact, I've even serendipitously found the CGI code referred to here

last week, and am tweaking it to support the Web interface to our HITL

simulator.

There's some C++ elsewhere on that program, largely because there was 
some C lying around and for *extremely* complicated and boring reasons

having to do with board support packages for the CPUs and 1553 boards 
involved and the change in pricing policies and our extreme reluctance

to pay yet another development license for a favorite product.

In short, Ada won where it did on this program and lost where it did 
on this program for the simplest of all reasons: practical trade 
studies conditioned by a lack of much money.

Bob Crispen
crispen@hiwaay.net
I *said* I wasn't speaking for my company.  Weren't you listening?