Re: About Ada...

["John Apa" <wolfmountainranch@worldnet.att.net>]

As far as I know we've only done Ada so there's not much comparison. Some
is being done by other divisions but it's not a major part of the market
place at this point. Ada works very well, and is being bid for all future
projects with the exception being GUI's and the like which are usually c.
The ada tools are out that and they are improving in quality and number
everyday. The only real comparison that I know of is the one done by the VP
at Rational and available at their web site. It compares the cost of their
tool development in both c and ada with the same teams, very enlightening.

Paul H. Whittington <paul@srv.net> wrote in article
<3498B3C8.432910F9@srv.net>...
> John can you give any comparisons regarding development and
> maintenance, in terms of cost and time to market, between Ada
> and any alternatives that have been attempted?
> 
> 
> John Apa wrote:
> 
> > I'm sure sorry if I threatened your belief system, but since I work for
the
> > company that does the work for most of Boeing's AC I think I can safely
> > make that assertion. The 777, 737, 747-400, V-22, and CH-47 all run on
a
> > diet of Ada. New planes ship with Ada, and the retrofit market is
mostly
> > Ada also. The guis are c or VAPs. We have hundreds of Ada engineers
working
> > on Boeing, and even Airbus, products. So start believing.
> >
> > I'm currently developing under DO-178B (in Ada95 even!), the FAA's new
> > standard for flight software. It's very daunting, but most new software
has
> > to be recertified anyway so having it in Ada isn't a big deal. Much of
the
> > earlier (pre-84) SW was written in PL/1 and was ported to Ada. No, not
the
> > best plan, but that's how we got to where we are. Much of the code has
been
> > redesigned since then in Ada.
> >
> > You sound like you're stating that it'd be harder to certify with Ada
than
> > anything else, that's just plain false. It also sounds like you're
stating
> > that planes are never upgraded to more recent flight management/control
> > systems, wrong again. Airframes are around for quite a while and in
this
> > market at least they are upgraded to increase safety and efficiency.
Both
> > noble causes.
> >
> > The FAA and world authorities are coming out with new regs for flying
and
> > that means better avionics are required to keep everyone safe.
Something I
> > strongly believe in when I'm at 30K Feet.
> >
> > You could have checked these facts too, it's certainly not a secret. I
> > posted this information informally to show that Ada is not just a
military
> > language. It is being accepted commercially where safety and
reliability
> > are critical.
> >
> > Please check your beliefs and repost.
> > John Apa
> >
> > Arthur Evans Jr <evans@evans.pgh.pa.us> wrote in article
> > <evans-1712970812050001@ppp21.s8.pgh.net>...
> > > In article <677hcg$s04@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > "John Apa" <wy.hunter@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ada is used on almost every AC that Boeing delivers, not just the
777.
> > >
> > > Are you sure of this fact?  I find it highly unlikely.  Many aircraft
> > > Boeing still delivers were developed long before Ada was considered a
> > > practical solution -- or even before Ada existed.  As rewriting in
Ada
> > > would require new FAA certification, a daunting obstacle, I find it
hard
> > > to believe that anyone would have done such an upgrade.
> > >
> > > Please check your facts and repost.
> > >
> > > Art Evans
> > >
> > > Arthur Evans Jr, PhD
> > > Ada Consulting
> > > evans@evans.pgh.pa.us
> > >
> 
> 
> 
>