vs Ada - Don't forget the prime directive!

[afes0isi@ZACH.FIT.EDU (Sam Harbaugh-AFES PROJECT)]

As I read the arguments of Ada vs <insert name of favorite language>
I recall the prime directive from starfleet command, "Achieve
lower life cycle costs". Since the DoD reports spending 80% of
life cycle costs in maintenance the software support system
requirements should be dominated by maintainability, not
development.  The software support system should thus be composed
of tools, languages and methods more suitable to maintenance
than development, when a choice must be made.  Thus having one
standard validated language, no dialects allowed, leads to
a larger qualified maintenance workforce and stability for
maintenance tool development.
Here are some beliefs I hold regarding Ada:
1. Ada is more readable than any other computer language I have seen.
I can better understand what the programmer told the computer
to do and what the designer intended to have the computer do.
2. The cost of computing is cut in half every 3 years. Thus while
I lament that Ada "costs more initially" it costs less and less
while I lament BUT only if I have chosen a software first design
approach and haven't purchased my computer hardware before beginning
my software design.  This ever decreasing cost of hardware can
further yield benefit if I design and build software which can be
reused, ported to ever more powerful and cheaper hardware as the
system is deployed.  I believe that Ada is the best language for
software first design and design for portability and reusability
of any computer language I have ever seen.
3. The computer language must be selected with respect to
system requirements, not language features and Ada was designed to
meet the DoD system requirements; therefore, it is no surprize to
me that Ada best fulfills the DoD's needs.
--
There, now I feel better!
sam harbaugh saharbaugh@ROO.FIT.EDU        
-----------