Re: Ada and Automotive Industry

[schwarza@gdls.com (Art Schwarz)]

GM is switching to C as their main high-level embedded processor language.
One GM stumbling block (since overcome I believe) is the lack of fixed
point arithmetic. However, GM has much more fundamental problems to over-
come than language.
[1] As a corporation, GM does not understand Systems / Software Architecture
    and design.
[2] There are invested prefectures (within GM) which will not move from
    absolute assembly language.
[3] There are managers who do not understand or acknowledge the necessity
    for a large scale toolset for configuration management, design, and
    development.
[4] Ditto for migrating from absolute assembly language to relocatable
    assembly language to a high level language.
[5] GM implementation and test procedures are arcane (at best) and often
    self-defeating. Rigorous test consists of getting in a car and seeing
    if anything happens.
[6] The development of requirements suitable for implementation is overshadowed
    by the development of requirements which are the implementation. The
    result is insufficient attention to requirements analysis as opposed to
    implementation (code) inspection.
[7] GM applies 'magic bullet' technology. Given a perceived software 'hole'
    or significant failure, software tools will be purchased and exper-
    imentation performed with the tool. Bypassing the problems associated
    with not having staff with the appropriate knowledge, training, or
    inclination. (The same applies to the grand acquisition of junior people
    in targeting disciplines hired to plug a knowledge hole.)
[8] A penny saved should be banked. The attention of 'penny pinching' by
    purchasing and using minimal architecture computers forces development
    to proceed into extraordinary pot-holes.

There is no true feel for the art and practice of software in the auto
industry in general (not just GM). This results in a continuously and
replayable suboptimal development behavior. Although I cynically say
that no auto manufacturer is happy without a ball-peen hammer in hand,
I think it more appropriate to say that the in-built inertia in the
largest company in the world precludes the replacement and / or education
of the company doers. The auto manufacturers are conservative in just
the arena where conservatism has no voice - software and firmware. I must
say that this is ironic. GM (in the very early 60's) was one of the prime
developers and one of the first users of graphics devices (Lockheed was
the other one).

To recognize change requires insight. To insist on it requires courage.


art schwarz

The opinions held here were never held by my wife and are certainly not
held by any company that I have ever worked for. 

In article <detaylor-1611961123260001@kok-ts1-03.holli.com>, detaylor@holli.com (David Taylor) writes:
> In article <56fpp2$m77@pt9201.ped.pto.ford.com>,
> patteeuw@sys2.ped.pto.ford.com wrote:
> 
> > Also, in powertrain controllers, GM has been using 68332 for years and Ford
> 
> GM has millions of 68332-based controllers on the road.
> 
> > has already announced intentions to use PowerPC in the future.  I
> > personally think Ada would find a good fit in either of these two
> > architecture, but neither Ford nor (to my knowledge) GM have shown any
> > interest.
> 
> GM uses Modula GM, a derivative of Modula 2.  Some of the additions to
> the language:
> 
>         Character strings from ANSI C
>         Volatile types from ANSI C
>         Fixed point types from Ada
>         Constant objects from ANSI C and Ada.
> 
> While not directly used, Ada has had an impact on the automotive world.
> 
> 
>   -- Dave
>      detaylor@holli.com
>