Re: Waiver question

[steved@pacifier.com (Steve Doiel)]

In article <33585385.C8D@lmtas.lmco.com>, GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com says...
>
>Consider a waiver request to use C++ in a Digital Signal Processing
>application. The waiver is based essentially on these arguments:
>
>  *  DSP engineers would rather program in C++ than Ada, since it
>     makes them more valuable in the larger commericial marker. As a
>     result, there is much higher attrition when DSP engineers are
>     required to program in Ada, and so the development cost is higher.
>
>  *  Most DSP tools are for C/C++. The number of DSP tools for Ada
>     will shrink, given that the DoD has decided not to mandate Ada
>     anymore.
>
>  *  Most existing DSP code is in C/C++. Therefore, reuse is easier
>     if the new code is also written in C++.
>
>Anyone have a reason to think this waiver shouldn't be approved?
>

Yes.  Exactly the same reason I think the waiver shouldn't be approved to
program the system in COBOL.  If I understand correctly the intent of the
mandate was to reduce the divergence tools used for system development, and
thus reduce long term costs.  I believe this has been successful.

Choosing different systems seems contrary to this intent.

There is evidence that Ada is a better choice for the software lifecycle than
C/C++ and this should be reinforced.  In order for Ada to remain the best
choice it requires continued support and use.  This means you!

Personally I'm tired of having systems that are technically superior die
out because inferior systems have an advantage in marketing.  But then
history does have a way of repeating itself.

Steve Doiel