Re: NRC Public Briefing on Ada

[rkester@csc.com (Rush Kester)]

David C. Hoos, Sr. (david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com) wrote:
: There was  considerable discussion of this point.  In fact, the language of
: the report appeared to specifically exempt simulations and logistics
: software from the requirement to use Ada -- but there were strenuous
: objections from two Army people to the effect that logistics and simulation
: are just as much "warfighting" as is embedded software in the things that
: "kill people and break things."
: -- 
: David C. Hoos, Sr.,

Having successfully used Ada 83 on simulators (e.g., spacecraft orbit,
attitude, and other telemetry data), the exclusion of "simulators" is a
disappointing suprise!  :-(   By successful, I mean, SIGNIFICANTLY
increased reuse, decreased error rate, smaller development/maintenance 
teams, and shorter delivery time than earlier Fortran systems, with
similar differences in the spacecrafts being simulated.  The increased
power and flexibility of Ada 95 would only widen the advantage of Ada over
other languages.  See (SEL-95-001), "Impact of Ada and Object-Oriented
Design in the Flight Dynamics Division at NASA/GSFC" at
http://fdd.gsfc.nasa.gov/selprods.html

These findings are also summarized in a paper presented at the
last WAdaS conference.  BTW, this paper will be included in the special
"Best of WAdaS'96" issue of SIGAda Letters to be published in the not to
distant future. 

Rush Kester
Sr. Software Engineer
Disclaimer:  The views expressed above are mine and do not necessarily
reflect those of my company or its customers.
W (301) 640-3632 (in person M-F: 9am-5pm EST, voicemail any time)
Fax        -4750 or -4940
-- 
Rush Kester
W (301) 640-3632 (in person M-F: 9am-5pm EST, voicemail any time)
Fax        -4750 or -4940