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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 08:29:13 -0700
From: mshapiro@manta.nosc.mil (Michael D Shapiro)
Subject: Re: 30 Years
Message-ID: <9308251529.AA07664@manta.nosc.mil>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In INFO-ADA Digest V93 #560m Bob (so what happened to Paramax?) Munck
     {munck@STARS.Reston.Paramax.COM} wrote:

> In INFO-ADA Digest V93 #559, Michael (I miss NOSC) Shapiro
> <mshapiro@nosc.mil> said:
>
> >I have no doubt that, at the moment, Ada is likely the best candidate
> >language for huge (in size or duration) projects.  But most software
> >written today isn't for these huge projects. ... perhaps we should ...
> >answer the question, "What is the minimum size or duration project for
> >which Ada is the most cost effective language?" ... could make the
> >mandate workable.
> 
> It's not the duration of the project that matters, it's the expected
> lifetime of the code, as a whole system and broken into component
> parts.  I hope you're not advocating a return to the chaos of
> "Pick-your-own-language" for DoD programming, just restricting it
> to "unhuge" projects.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that people don't think the same way I do
about what a software project entails.  I count a software project as
lasting from the time people start coming up with a blurb describing
what it does until the last maintained version is turned off.  This is
roughly the management paradigm I proposed in my article "Software is a
product . . . NOT!" in the September 1992 IEEE Computer magazine (p.
128).  A basic idea is that the cost of a project is every cost a
software group has associated with their software throughout its
lifecycle.

Because I believe Ada cannot always be used cost-effectively for small
or short projects (using my definition of a project), I do advocate
that more appropriate languages be used for small or short projects
where they are more cost-effective.  We need some guidelines as to
where the cost-effectiveness breakpoints come.  I think the language
choice really does not matter on true small/short projects because no
one will need to look at the source code except the developers.  Ever.

Probably what we should really hope that someone is looking for the
successor to Ada and C++ and {insert your other favorite language here}
that takes the most appropriate properties of each and combines them
into a new tailorable language.  As I see it, this language should have
multiple formality levels.  High formality would be required for huge
systems.  Informality would be allowed for throwaway programs.
In-between systems would need to conform to some intermediate formality
levels.

>>From what I have read and heard, I believe that Ada9X will not meet
these requirements of my proposed new language.  Does anyone know if
anyone is working (even on just the requirements) on a next generation
highly formal language for huge systems that can be used easily and
less formally on non-huge systems?  I have the feeling that no current
mainline language can do the job.  If we only continue bickering about
current languages, we'll delay movement toward meeting our real future
needs.  Since I feel that Ada is the most advanced language currently
around for some of the needed concepts, this group may be a reasonable
discussion arena.

         Michael

{These ideas are, of course, my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.  It would be kind of nice if they would adopt them, though.}

========================================================================
Michael D. Shapiro, Ph.D.                      e-mail: mshapiro@nosc.mil
NCCOSC RDT&E Division (NRaD) Code 411            San Diego CA 92152-7560
Voice: (619) 553-4080         FAX: (619) 553-4808          DSN: 553-4080
   [Until January 1992 we were the Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC)]