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

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

[nabbasi]

what do you think they mean by saying C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada? in 
what sense? if they measure the time one spends fixing C/C++ bugs that
an Ada compile finds at compile time, they'll find Ada much cheaper.

interesting in that they say "cheaper" then follow that by "engineering
approach". 

Nasser

--
GOVERNMENT NEWS 

GCN June 22, 1998 

http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A1=ind9806&L=team-ada#5

"Defense is increasingly turning to cheaper programming languages 
such as C and C++ to program its systems. DOD is
encouraging systems programmers to use an engineering approach 
when selecting a software language, based on a number
of factors including lifecycle costs, risks and interoperability.

"DOD policy now places all programming languages on equal footing, where
capability to provide the best support to the
mission requirement will drive the solution selected, not a one-size-fits-all
mandate," Valletta said. "

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

[Bob Munck]

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.

Bob Munck
Mill Creek Systems LC

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

[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

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

[Dale Stanbrough]

""DOD policy now places all programming languages on equal footing, where
 capability to provide the best support to the
 mission requirement will drive the solution selected, not a
one-size-fits-all
 mandate," Valletta said. ""

Ho ho ho!

"Please all people, forget all the innuendo you have heard about Ada,
 our policy is that all languages are on an equal footing"

Perhaps Valletta should undertake a course in psychology. I personally
doubt the professionallism of so many so called professionals to make an
informed, impartial disinterested choice.

Dale

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

[Do-While Jones]

In article <6nubua$ocj@drn.newsguy.com>,  <nabbasi@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>what do you think they mean by saying C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada? in 
>what sense?

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary gives this definition of
"cheap":

"3 a : of inferior quality or worth : TAWDRY, SLEAZY b: contemptible
because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities " 

Perhaps that's what they mean. :-)

>--
>GOVERNMENT NEWS 
>
>GCN June 22, 1998 
>
>http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A1=ind9806&L=team-ada#5
>
>"Defense is increasingly turning to cheaper programming languages 
>such as C and C++ to program its systems.


Do-While Jones

            +--------------------------------+
            |    Know                 Ada    |
            |        [Ada's Portrait]        |
            |    Will              Travel    |
            | wire do_while@ridgecrest.ca.us |
            |   www.ridgenet.net/~do_while   |
            +--------------------------------+

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

[vonhend]

In <6nubua$ocj@drn.newsguy.com>, nabbasi@earthlink.net writes:
>
>what do you think they mean by saying C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada? in 
>what sense? if they measure the time one spends fixing C/C++ bugs that
>an Ada compile finds at compile time, they'll find Ada much cheaper.
>
Generally, when they say C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada, the DoD is considering
only 2 factors:  the cost of licenses for the compilers, and the cost of
software engineers/programmers with sufficient skill with (read "knowledge of"
for "skill with") the language.  In general, on the kinds of computer systems
in wide use by DoD (VAX, Sun SPARCs, HPs, IBMs--but not PCs) Ada compilers
require _expensive_ licenses.  On the other hand, a C and/or C++ compiler
is often bundled (for no extra charge) with the operating system.

As for programmers, the colleges, universities, and trade schools are turning
out C++ programmers by the thousands.  Ada programmers are comparatively
rare.  In this country (USA), many hiring managers have the erroneous impression
that Ada is unsuited to business programming, but C++ is excellent for it.  As
a result, the educational centers are pushed toward ... well, just look in the
newspaper at the classified section.

It is emphatically not cheaper to build a sizeable application (anything over
100,000 lines of code) in C++.  Even if you take fresh from college C programmers,
train them in Ada programming and the use of Ada-specific software development
tools, buy new hardware and software, and do all the documentation required
by MIL-STD 2167A, it still costs much less to develop the program in C++.

The above statement is based not only on my experience (nearly 20 years in
major aerospace corporations) but on those of colleagues who have managed
a variety of large and small software projects for said aerospace corporations.

Mark Von Hendy, Sr. Scientific Programmer/Analyst
Lockheed Martin Technical Operations 


>interesting in that they say "cheaper" then follow that by "engineering
>approach". 
>
>Nasser
>
>--
>GOVERNMENT NEWS 
>
>GCN June 22, 1998 
>
>http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A1=ind9806&L=team-ada#5
>
>"Defense is increasingly turning to cheaper programming languages 
>such as C and C++ to program its systems. DOD is
>encouraging systems programmers to use an engineering approach 
>when selecting a software language, based on a number
>of factors including lifecycle costs, risks and interoperability.
>
>"DOD policy now places all programming languages on equal footing, where
>capability to provide the best support to the
>mission requirement will drive the solution selected, not a one-size-fits-all
>mandate," Valletta said. "

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

[Lengyel Sandor]

vonhend@ibm.net wrote:
>
> 
> It is emphatically not cheaper to build a sizeable application (anything over
> 100,000 lines of code) in C++.  Even if you take fresh from college C programmers,
> train them in Ada programming and the use of Ada-specific software development
> tools, buy new hardware and software, and do all the documentation required

> by MIL-STD 2167A, it still costs much less to develop the program in C++. <<<<<<<Typo>>>>>
> 

> The above statement is based not only on my experience (nearly 20 years in
> major aerospace corporations) but on those of colleagues who have managed
> a variety of large and small software projects for said aerospace corporations.
> 
> Mark Von Hendy, Sr. Scientific Programmer/Analyst
> Lockheed Martin Technical Operations
> 


-- 
 Lengyel Sándor

Hass, alkoss, gyarapits,
S a haza fényre derül. (Kölcsey)