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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!JPL-VLSI.ARPA!larry From: larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA Newsgroups: net.lang.ada Subject: Question about CAIS recommendation Message-ID: <8606180255.AA02888@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 17-Jun-86 02:22:18 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8606180255.AA02888 Posted: Tue Jun 17 02:22:18 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jun-86 19:29:26 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet List-Id: I just returned from the ADA/Space Station Conference in Houston, roughly four days of four-track half-hour presentations. It was jointly and fairly smoothly hosted by Johnson Space Center and the University of Houston at Clear Lake (the township surrounding the two institutions). It also had a lot of help from the local SIGAda and vendors. One topic, discussed Tuesday night with a panel containing several of the CAIS and KIT/KITIA teams and chaired by NASA's Ed Chevers, was the desirability of putting a CAIS requirement in the contract for the Software Development Environment for the space station. This will a facility maintained at JSC which will contain all ground- and space-based SW and linked to all developers at contractor and other NASA sites. They will, of course, have to have compatible environments (if not identical ones). Chevers (and a couple of other NASA people) took the devil's advocate position. One argument was "We've got to have an operational SDE by mid-87 and the CAIS won't even be finalized then." Also, "With an Ada compiler on every computer in the SDE, why do we need a CAIS to port tools to computers from different vendors?" Not surprisingly, there was a lot of opposition to the rather tongue-in-cheek NASA position. In keeping with a low-risk/high-gain approach, my suggestion is to include in the SDE Request for Purchase (due around the end of this year) a requirement for the ability to easily upgrade to the future CAIS. My reasoning is that modern operating systems are highly modular and already contain most of what any KAPSE needs, so could (probably SHOULD) be periodically upgraded to a new user or development environment. This would exclude archaic OSs like IBM's MVS and Sperry-Univac's Exec8, and include IBM's VM, DEC's VMS, etc. Before I make a formal proposal to the Space Station SW Working Group, I'd like to ask this distribution list: am I right? If not, how am I wrong? Larry @ jpl-vlsi.arpa