Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 03:16:44 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> Today DoD cannot afford design of a new technology, language, compiler. DoD
>> can only buy something already designed, e.g. C. It would be a little
>> exaggeration to compare DoD's influence on the language/technology market
>> with yours or mine. And it keeps on ceasing. The next flight system could
>> will be in C#.
> 
> Are we talking about the same DoD? The United States Department of
> Defense has essentially unlimited funds; look what we are spending in
> Afghanistan and Iraq.

These funds cannot be spent on software development. Well, the software may
kill, but it predominantly does its users... (:-))

> They choose not to spend money on software, but that's a political and
> technical decision, not a money one.

That is the same. Software is not considered an existential threat (it
probably should). 

>>> We don't need regulations, we need success oriented contracting.
>>
>> How do you measure "success"? In terms of market shares? Isn't C a
>> success? 
> 
> For a DoD contract for a figher airplane, "success" is measured by
> absence of errors during flight, high performance during flight, and
> ease of long term maintenance.

Yep, and none of these can be unequivocally deduced from the software
design faults. And absolutely none from the software technology. Remember
Ariane.

>>> Part of the problem is people don't know how to manage large systems;
>>> that's why the air traffic control system is not replaced yet.
>>
>> The problem is that there is no market for large, mission critical systems. 
>> You cannot afford trial and error strategy for a system controlling
>> nuclear reactor or air traffic. 
> 
> Technically, there is a market for these, it's just very inefficient
> because it's low volume.

That is the point. If you had millions competing implementations of the
same software product, you could chose the best vendor by natural selection
in some years. That will *never* happen with software, written by man. The
price to establish such a competition is millions higher than the price of
any monopolist's software faults. Software is a natural monopoly.

>> Similarly, there is no and cannot be a market for computer languages,
>> operating systems etc. 
> 
> You're kidding, right? The whole point of this discussion is about what
> language to use.

Exactly. If market worked, you knew the answer from there.

>> Without regulations the result is always microsoft. 
> 
> Not at my place of work. The reason most peopel use Microsoft is
> _because_ of regulation.

May I beg for an example?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de