Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Ron Thompson <thompsor@admin.tc.faa.gov>]

gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn) wrote:
>In article <50p6ldINNall@faatcrl.faa.gov>, Ron Thompson
><thompsor@admin.tc.faa.gov> wrote:

I did write, and I am glad to see a tech from a company able
to talk to a tech from the gummint.  We need this sort of
exchange, and here goes:

>I don't know how much credence I would put in the party line from the PR
>dept.  That's why I don't bother to ask.  And I know technical people who
>were there.

I couldn't agree more with your "party line" hesitation.
Note however that I said factual info. It is there and can
be gotten, once one gets past any party lines from the PR
folks. Those people have TWO jobs, answer for all of us in
a uniform voice, and provide facts.


>That isn't what the last two FAA RFPs I worked on said.  They said that
>one could choose between C and C++; Ada was excluded by omission.  We have
>it by usually reliable channels that this omission was not an accident.

I have no doubt that the RFP said something along the lines
of "in a High Order Language such as C or C++...".
Ada may not have appeared in the "such as" list.  Usually 
reliable channels could certainly suggest that it was no
accident.

>I agree, but so what?  I'm not the FAA.  And, I would be terrified to use
>such trendy stuff anyway -- all that stuff is vaporware, and certainly not
>something I would bet civilian airliners on.  However, C is widely and
>successfully used in ATC.

My answer may have appeared to advocate the use of such a 
scheme.  I apologize for its' lack of clarity.  My only point
was that the language did not in any way cause the debacle,
therefore, the AAS debacle was not and should never be a 
"lesson learned" about using Ada.

>Not at all.  They are buying full-custom, and can have it in any language
>they want.  And, the main language of the ATC world is C, not Ada, so it
>would be hard to criticise their choice of C.  There is probably ten times
>as much C as Ada used in ATC applications.  It matters not at all that
>Thompson/CSF has been using and touting Ada.

I can assure you that fine companies all over the USofA listen
closely to the awarding of contracts, and line up the lawyers
for the appeals.  Any doubts about that?  Watch the news this
week, Friday, when there is a really big contract award
announcement.  Contact us in a year to see how many appeals
and suits are pending based on that award.  The point was not
the choice of C or C++.  We wouldn't criticise anyone for
submitting a system design using C or C++.  I will bet a 
dollar that if my company got the job on an Ada bid, LOTS 
of companies would appeal/sue based on the fact ONLY that they 
DIDN'T get it.  And I bet another dollar that part of the
justification that they would use would be the AAS debacle 
and how it happened because of Ada, and all of the techs know
that is not true.  C and C++ are definitely used 10 times as 
much as Ada.  If the contract is awarded based on 
cost/schedule, and not on what it is that makes a good system, 
Ada is doomed.  Remember the huge curve that Ada allegedly 
has.  Remember that C/C++ programmers are rapidly becoming the 
MBAs of the 90s.  Cost and schedule rules.

>See comment on item 3, above.  It seems to me that the FAA is talking only
>about the final implementation language.  I'm not sure what a "system
>concept written in Ada" would be, unless you mean Ada PDL.  I don't know
>that anybody has tried that wrinkle out on the FAA lately.  We (Raytheon)
>actually implemented a Canadian ATC system in C with Ada PDL in the mid
>1980s, as Ada83 compilers weren't then ready for prime time.  It turned
>out to be a bad idea -- the language models were too far apart.  We got it
>to work anyway, but wouldn't do it that way again.


Again my apology for the muddiness of the answer.  If my
company submits a bid on a system, and it is to use Ada for
the software, and the FAA awards it to another company because
my company chose Ada, my lawyers would be working overtime for
the forseable future.  Those are the facts of the CONTRACTS
end of this business.  A large and well known company has had
a contract for approximately two years.  It is behind 
schedule in a large way, and they are back at the trough with
the right hand out looking for money to bring the thing up to
speed.  The FAA says no, we are cancelling the contract with
you.  It is later awarded to another company that was one of
the bidders on the initial RFP.  The company that ran 
themselves into the ground on it goes to court and sues the
government because we won't play the way we used to. THOSE
are the facts about the contracting end of this business.
THAT is happening as we speak.
> 
>
>Joe Gwinn

Again, thanks for the healthy debate.  My only intention was
to point out that the "AAS debacle" was NOT a language 
problem, and that limiting ourselves to any single language 
would be just as bad as any other large company limiting 
themselves to a single language or variations of it.
The references to law suits and appeals is a reference to the
things that go on after the awarding of a contract, and the
public doesn't usually pay much attention to them.

Your swing...

rct

The opinions above are mine and mine alone.