Re: How many different processors do you use?

[muddy_buddy@my-deja.com]

In article <7jn75i$5d5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7jmr4i$1c1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   muddy_buddy@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> I am afraid your idea that Reagen (sic) took a personal interest
> in how Ada was funded is a bit far-fetched :-)

I doubt that Reagen was ever capable of understanding the differences
between programing languages.  My point, was the general policy was
responsible for the lack of government funded efforts.


>
> > However, there were government people pointing that out
> > as a reason in the 80's.
>
> No idea what you are talking about here! I trust you do know
> that now there *is* a freely available high quality compiler
> for Ada 95, part of the GNU system.
>
Which has nothing to do with the enviroment of the mid 80's at all.
I also read in various news release how the private industry was going
to provide all this great development software.  From the Embedded
point of view in the 80's and early 90's it didn't happen or it
was hidden from TI.  True we produced quite a few systems with
320c30 and 320c40, but there was a marked lack of support for smaller
processors.  It made be different now.  Maybe Ada will replace C?
Is Ada gaining programing seats at rates equal to C or C++?  Is it
gaining on Java and Visual Basic?


> > The goal of the Ada project was to standardize defense
> > deptmart software on Ada.
>
>
> Odd, how come if so many people are retreating, then our Ada
> business is rapidly growing, and other vendors have also
> reported a successful marketplace for Ada. The fact is that
> many large defense contractors continue with a strong commitment
> to Ada for the kind of projects where it has always been the
> most successful.
That may well be true.  My company deals almost exclusively in Embedded
or test software.  Very low level stuff, and my area is mostly
image processing or sensor control.  This has likely lead to a strong
basis against Ada due to its initial lack of speed, and large complied
size.  We also use a lot of smaller processors that need small download
modules.  Like I said, I like Ada.  However if the Legacy TI part of
Raytheon is typical of Raytheon as a whole, that alone would be a big
chunk of the defense industry in the US.  I also admit, due in part to
dislike of Ada, we never tried Ada 95 in any of the programs I worked.



> > Your 10K figure is a bogus one picked out of the air. Many
> > universities had Ada, none I know paid anywhere near 10K.
>
> > The 10k number as the price I remember for the development
> > system we got.
>
> You do quite a lot of bogus extrapolation from your own limited
> experience it would seem. Just because you paid 10K, you assume
> that everyone else did -- rather absurd if you think about it,
> and certainly quite wrong.
I remember it being looked at pretty hard.  Does anyone have some
price lists from the 80's.  You have already used arguments about
Ada 95 to dispute one point about what happened in the 80's so
I am curious about which view is right.


>
> > > Sounds like quite a bit of mismanagement there to me!
> >
> > Agreed, but the government's mismanagement of the Ada effort
> > was the whole point of my orginal post, not any attack on the
> > Ada language.  I wish they had done a better job.
>
> No, I was meaning that it sounded like your company mismanaged
> its Ada involvement from the sound of it.
I talked to the government rep.s quite a bit, they sure seemed to
guide us that way.  I will admit they weren't the sharpest tacks in
the box, so maybe they communicated.  Maybe my company was at fault
it is more than likely in most cases.

>
> > See above, the Ada language itself was a minor problem.  The
> > way the government supported it was cause of the lack of
> > acceptance.  The same government agency also tried to get us
> > to do Ada Peudo code for PLD's.  I not positive our own
> > managament wasn't at fault for some of this
>
> That's what it sounds like to me!
>
> > but the Government's Ada effort must of made them think thats
> > what the customer wanted.
>
> Don't be too quick to blame nameless government folks
They weren't nameless, I just choose to name them.

>
> > Admittely we have a lot of problem finding any programmers to
> > work here,
>
> So, that's odd, why could that be? Note that this difficulty
> is nothing to do with Ada, as I understand what you are saying.
> So if you have difficulty elsewhere, it is more evidence that
> things are not being managed as they should be.
>
> > but adding Ada to the requirements just makes
> > it worst.  When you have a defense contractor in a hot
> > engineering market, retension
> > becomes a real problem.
>
> Not for a well run company!
Name one defense company of any size that does not have a retension
problem for sites in hot areas.  In fact almost every high tech company
is having problems in Dallas.  From the ads I see for LMVS, and Ball
they sure are wasting alot of advertising dollars if they aren't
losing people.  I Haven't seen one in a week or so, but Boeing was
hiring too as well.





> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.