Re: The future of Ada

[Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>]

In article <1999Mar11.080820.1@eisner>,
	kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

>Depending on your organization, an equivalently strong statement to
>"it WILL not work" is "it WILL not be delivered on time".

 There is another argument in favor of Ada that is beginning to 
 manifest itself in organizations converting to C++: employee
 turnover.  

 It seems that, once the Ada programmers are trained in C++ (we are now
 doing some of that training), they are more able to present that skill
 to other employers.  In fact, a large number of Ada programmers
 who learn C++ register with a "brain-transplant specialist" (recruiter)
 in search of greener pastures.  Then they need to be replaced.

 If DoD contractors were more thoughtful about this, they would realize
 that Ada is a good language choice to prevent employee turnover. It is
 really important to retain people with a knowledge of the application.
 And consider the cost of getting security clearances for new hires!  In
 the long run, Ada is far more cost effective than C++ for DoD software.
 The problem is that the people making the decision fail to evaluate all
 the total costs.  The popularity of C++ is exactly the wrong reason for
 choosing it on a DoD weapon system.

 Richard Riehle
 http://www.adaworks.com