Re: Ada on International Space Station (Re: where can we get a job with ada)

[rlove@antispam.neosoft.com (Robert B. Love )]

In <hoffman-ya02408000R1204002048410001@news.insync.net> David Hoffman 
wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that the core GN&C functions in the flight software 
(at
> least the US side) are written in Ada. I have a friend who is a

Well, true and false.  The GNC software is written by Boeing in 
Huntington
Beach using a tool called MatrixX.  This is a popular tool among the
control theory crowd.  It is based on a dataflow paradigm.  You connect
blocks showing signal flow and can put some predefined algorithms in 
the blocks. (you can design your own blocks too).  You test the code
using a built in test tools and scheduler.  When you're happy with
the results you push a button and out pops "autocode", machine
generated Ada that is not meant to be read by humans.    Other, non GNC
flight computers, have the flight code written by hand the way its
supposed to be.

> subcontractor
> to Raytheon where he writes Ada code for the part task trainer (a 
subsystem
> simulator).
> 

<PRIDE>
Raytheon also builds the full up trainer used to train the flight crew,
the mission controllers, some payloads operators at remote sites etc.
Increasingly, the simulator is being used as a validation test bed for
some of the MDMs and software issues although that wasn't its purpose.
</PRIDE>

Both the Part Task Trainer and the Full Task Trainer are written in Ada.
But I keep hearing that people want future version written in C++.  Why
people would want to mess with working code is beyond me.  What I 
want to know is how do we keep Ada in the forefront?  Why is there
an air of desirablity to C++?


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Love                                   
 rlove@neosoft.com                            
----------------------------------------------------------------