Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how?

[RSWhite@nospam.somewhere.ia.us (Robert S. White)]

In article <35a3e989.208105089@news.mindspring.com>, 
munck@Mill-Creek-Systems.com says...
>
>Let's face it, folks, the Ada effort had us fooled for decades
>into thinking that the DoD had a handle on software, 
>development environments, project management, etc.
>We ignored the evidence from things like ICASE and
>STARS because Ada seemed to indicate that they'd at
>least gotten the basics right.  Now that the current program
>manager fad is C++, we hear their brain-dead justifications
>for it and realize how deluded we were.  Sic transit gloria Ada.

  Actually its not as bad as that.  With the current 
Non-Developmental Item (NDI) philosophy of DoD product acquisition
the use of Ada has turned into a non-mandate competitive edge.
Suh!  Keep it quiet!  It's a competitive edge!  Only companies
with senior SW engineers who know how to effectively 
specify/justify Ada in the SW engineering developement plan (we 
are now SEI level 3 or higher now aren't we) and get the 
new/junior SW engineers trained (in Ada and other best practice 
SWE development methods) end up delivering product that works as
required within spec.  Avoiding warrenty SW bugs _does_ end up
making a program profitable in the long run.  The ability to get
a high degree of software reuse and short time to market with new
features/improvements maintains the market share, profit and 
competitive edge.  IMHO & IME.

  I hope my competition tries to use C++ with only new personnel that
don't understand embedded Real Time programming constraints!
_____________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White         -- An embedded systems software engineer
e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ):  net mcleodusa shift2 r white