Re: Ada used in General Aviation (GA) applications?

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>]

 (Bernd Specht) writes:
> wrote in
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >| -----Message d'origine-----
> >| De: ...
> >| > Use an Ada-to-C compiler for 8051.
> >| 
> >| Why not directly C?
> > Because it cost 60% less to developp and because the result will
> > contain 8 time less bugs with a comparable test effort. Studies showing
> > that are on the net.
> 
> 
> 60% less???
> 
> Throw away current develop-tools.

If you use an Ada-to-C compiler, you will probably not have to throw
away many tools.  You can keep your C compiler, configuration
management system, editor, documentation system, etc.

> Throwing away the staffs know how.

This would be a silly mistake.  Most of that know-how is in the
problem space, in this case avionics; not in the particular
implementation language.

> Start from scratch.

Again, no.  You can reuse your tested and proven C code from new Ada
programs.  And all the business-specific knowledge is reusable.

> Write Ada to generate C, instead the employees writing C-code.

Yes, this is a good approach, because C code generated from Ada has
fewer bugs than hand-written C code; just like assembler generated
from C has fewer bugs than hand-written assembler.

> 60% less??? Maybe over the next 100 years. But till then the company
> is dead.

No.  Studies show that the return on investment is quite rapid.  The
time it takes to learn Ada is negligible compared to the time it takes
to learn avionics or any other business.  In fact, the time spent
writing the code is a fraction of the time it takes to debug, test and
validate the code.  This is where Ada pays for itself many times over:
it cuts into the debugging, testing and validation time.

> Our business is to make profit. You are an academician?

If this is the case, then you should be prepared to use
state-of-the-art, not second-choice languages; just like you should
generally use the tools most appropriate for your job.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.