From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PLING_QUERY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,b6d862eabdeb1fc4
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
References: <jhaJn.4661$z%6.1650@edtnps83>
 	<0e88de66-128c-48fd-9b9f-fdb4357f318a@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 	<XogJn.4313$Z6.4310@edtnps82>
 	<tarujgrysngw.1ln7awtgq3otu.dlg@40tude.net>
 	<m8jJn.4317$Z6.1405@edtnps82> <op.vc40fcksule2fv@garhos>
 	<22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82>
 	<8d5dbf6e-81fe-4419-aaad-118921a47b4a@q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 	<htc3e7$sjf$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <hHgKn.4608$Z6.3902@edtnps82>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400
Message-ID: <82ocg5r7w5.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rIaQLZxWknqRiBCXTrM48bcoAkE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: 854434bfa40dee197caa703691
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11913
Date: 2010-05-24T05:00:58-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@ml1.net> writes:

> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> wrote:
>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote:
>>> 
>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software
>>> on the JSF aircraft project?
>>
>> Money.
>>
>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money 
>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of 
>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. 
>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art.
>>
>
> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for
> using the "right tool, for a particular task".  Greed, greed, and more greed
> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. 

It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the
contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools
and writing good software, that's what would happen.

It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the
client's job to set the terms of the contract.

-- 
-- Stephe