From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50,HK_RANDOM_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:26 From: JD3GTRCW.TRANSCOM@transcom.safb.af.mil (CONROY WILLIAM F) Subject: Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #522 Message-ID: <9308121533.AA24097@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> List-Id: This forum is extremely interesting to listem to some of the threads. I work in a large govt organization trying to live with the ADA mandate. It is extremely interesting to hear the holy wars and the argument to follow the mandate because and only because it is law. I'd like to give you some comments for thought: ADA is a tool, it is only a tool. It is extremely good for some problem domains, very poor in others. The problem in the DOD the ADA mandate was addressing was the total lack of standards and the inability to perform software verification on complex mission critical systems. A second extremely subordinate point is the ability to reuse code and attempt to have platform independance. Another aspect of the problem is the C++ vs ADA issue. ADA is a very good language designed by academics to support the verification process. It has some really lousy implementation aspects which have been covered for days in this forum. Final problem: The world is driven by $$$$. The ADA mandate was pushed through in a period when the govt had the arrogant opinion that we could enforce our standards by law, forget the cost. This created a situation where a few companies produced OK compilers at high cost, extremely slow compile times, with minimal optimizations. The ADA mandate completely violates the concept of the free market system. The C++ world, and I agree C++ is certainly not a silver bullet, is not driven by a mandate. Rather it is driven by market forces which are much stronger. As a result we are seeing cheap, robust compilers which survive by being responsive to the needs of the customer in terms of speed and features. Pick up a computer rag and see how many add on ADA packages exist which actually solve problems? If you can find them, what is the cost? As a program management office I am resposible for producing computer systems which "fix" real world problems within a decreasing budget. ADA is just a tool, a rather expensive tool. I am required to pay top dollar for decent, not spectacular, programmers. I have to spend a lot for compilers which are incredibly sloooowwww..... I find the source code extremely portable as long as I stay with one vendors implimentation and don't use any of the vendor supplied libraries for anything like graphic i/o or other non standard capabilities. Finally, I put up with a process which takes an absolutely ludicrious number of years for the language committee to fix basic language architecture problems. Finally, AT&T in their switching circuits have the same requirements for robust verifiable software that we have. With the country in significant trouble economically, how can we support spending a significant premium to use a niche language, give up access to languages being driven by the same market forces driving us. If you SERIOUSLY want ADA to be the language it could be, you need to emphasize places where ADA has actually an advantage over other languages in fixing "real" problems. Send flames to congress or /dev/null PS. I do comply with the ADA mandate and it costs the US taxpayer a significant premium with no significant benefits over other tools we could have used. Bill Conroy