Re: THAAD Study on Ada Viability

["Singlespeeder" <singlespeeder@btinternet.com>]

What I find fustating about ADA is the IDE. I know it was the first language
supposed to have one from the start but frankly working in defense it's
still DEC ada 83 and the DEC LSE while the rest of the world moves on. Even
ADAGIDE is a great improvement (I've even taken to developing on a PC under
ADAGIDE then FTPing back to VMS for final builds, formal testing etc).

Some of us aren't interested in a pure Ada IDE and like the way Microsoft
started to integrate all their languages in Visual Studio. There's no reason
why a third party couldn'e develop Visual Ada to go with the suite. Hey, if
someone's doing it for COBOL...

Then of course ACT looks good, and there's always jGrasp...

Has anyone got any stats on how many errors are down to environment not
language? You know, the kind that an IDE helps you spot as you're writing.

The point is though that the defense industry isn't going to upgrade the
development environment and move their development wholesale onto these
suites. Instead they'll stick with overstretched VAX/VMS machines, and an
environment that may have been hot in 1983 but doesn't cut it in the 21st
century - certainly not when trying to meet their 21st century timescales.

If Ada is dead within the defense industry I believe that it's not the fault
of the language. Rather it's the fault of the IDE, and the unwillingness of
the buyers of defense products to move with the times. Ada has shown itself
to be capable of moving on, the decision makers in the Pentagon who mandated
not just the language but the toolset have not.

Nick Wallis
singlespeeder@32sixteen.com