Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Bob Crispen]

Gregory Aharonian <srctran@WORLD.STD.COM> sez:

>        Overview of the Air Vehicle Training Systems Demonstration Project
>        Boeing / STARS
>        No language mentioned

It's Ada.  Lots and lots of Ada, with an Ada-based domain architecture
that would be simply hellacious to implement in any other language.

Wrt the rest of the post, I personally think that anyone who doesn't
buy the Wax Trax! records 13th anniversary box set should have his
bowels removed before his eyes and then have flaming wolverines sewn
up inside the space vacated by the bowels.  Then he should be severely
yelled at.  However, because I have no way to make this happen in the
context of this group, I will refrain from saying so. ;-)
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Bob Crispen                   |   Who will babysit the babysitters?  |
| crispen@foxy.hv.boeing.com    +--------------------------------------+
| (205) 461-3296                |Opinions expressed here are mine alone|
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Bob Munck]

Gregory Aharonian's keyboard (apparently with little or no guidance
from his brain) said:

>Once again we see the ongoing hypocrisy of the STARS effort - here a
>four page article describing the use of STARS tools on a project
>without mentioning Ada once in the article - more evidence of their
>embarassment of being associated with Ada.

Gee, Greg, we also don't often mention that we all breathe
oxygen-nitrogen mixtures, wear shoes while in the office, and use mice
on the right side of the keyboard.  How about your embarassment with
the kind of computer you use -- you've never once mentioned it.

Consider that what STARS does is concerned with producing reliable and
maintainable software; what alternatives are there to Ada?  Most STARS
people would be quite emphatic in saying "NONE!"  If we do tend to say
less in favor of Ada than most other true believers, it may be because
many of us have been involved the Ada Effort for a very long time (16
years in my case) and are tired of arguing with the infidel.  To us,
the question has been answered and the debate is over; we've gone on
to the next barrier to good software.

We also realize, because we've given it a good deal of thought, that
much of what STARS has produced -- domain engineering, process
modeling and enactment, etc -- is largely independent of programming
language.  If the stuff we're doing could help companies using C,
FORTRAN, APL, or whatever, why go out of our way to give the false
impression that we're entirely dependent on Ada?  When they start
using our results and thinking about their software in terms of
maintainability and reliability, they'll see that Ada is the better
choice for them too.

Bob Munck
not currently wearing shoes

Re: Is DOD simulation ignoring using Ada???

[Nick Sizemore]

    LCSS - Life Cycle Software Support

    ...also previously referred to as...

    PDSS - Post Deployment Software Support

    ...i.e., software maintenance / enhancement / retirement / replacement
    / configuration management.



   +------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   |N. L. Sizemore                | (602) 538-4883 [Voice]          |
   |Computer Sciences Corporation | (602) 538-4933 [FAX]            |
   |P.  O. Box 719                | sizemore@huachuca-emh17.army.mil|
   |Ft. Huachuca, AZ  85613-0719  |                                 |
   +----------------------------------------------------------------+
   |    "For aggregate success, members must be the same to the     |
   |    system and different to the environment."                   |
   |                                                                |
   |    Second Aggregate Law        in General Principles of        |
   |                                System Design                   |
   |                                Gerald & Daniela Weinberg       |
   +----------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: Is DOD simulation ignoring using Ada???

[Garlington KE]

Nick Sizemore (sizemore@HUACHUCA-EMH17.ARMY.MIL) wrote:
:     LCSS - Life Cycle Software Support
:     ...also previously referred to as...
:     PDSS - Post Deployment Software Support

Technically, they're not the same, since PDSS only looked at what happened
after deployment while LCSS looks at every part of the life cycle. However,
in practice, they are about the same.

:     ...i.e., software maintenance / enhancement / retirement / replacement
:     / configuration management.

Yeah, the easy stuff!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Bob Crispen]

Garlington KE <l107353@CLIFFY.LFWC.LOCKHEED.COM> sez:

>I remember getting a STARS briefing on megapriogramming a long time ago. The
>speaker urged us to get more involved with STARTS so that, for example,
>we could build an airplane that integrated flight control and avionics.
>We broke his heart when we described the AFTI program back in the early 80's.
>
>Seems like STARS hasn't changed much with respect to its relevance to the
>practitioners...

I think the significant phrase in your post is "a long time ago".
Either that or you got a lousy briefing.  Or, as a third possibility,
you're just being bloody-minded about the thing. ;-)

To put it briefly, megaprogramming says that one way (maybe the
only way) to make large-scale reuse happen is to have a defined,
automatable process for reuse based on commonality and variability
within a product line or domain, and to have an architecture (or
perhaps a small set of architectures) that is specific to the domain.

It turns out that the DARTS architecture, which I've had something to
do with over the years, is one such architecture.  And I gather
you're using a family of architectures which bear some passing
resemblance to DARTS, in that they're products of something like
the SEI's Structural Modeling process.

Anyway, it seems to me that you're doing the hard part of what you
need to do to get reuse (the architectural part).  But I don't see
you doing the easy part (an analysis of commonality and variability
targeted toward embodiment in a process).  Here's where I think you
might be helped by megaprogramming.  Note that I mean these statements
to be very general: *anyone*, not just F-22, who has implemented a
domain architecture based on a well-defined process could get some
benefits from taking the next step in megaprogramming.

It's no trick at all to have reuse between two identical products.
If you have avionics software that runs on aircraft #1 and you want
it to run on aircraft #2, you know what to do.  If you've got
a hundred wildly varying products (fighter aircraft, toasters, video
games) there's no trick to reuse, either: you make a library of
very useful basic components and reuse on this low level.

It only becomes tricky when you've got a well-defined (or definable)
range of variability: avionics software..avionics simulation software;
or transport aircraft simulators..fighter aircraft simulators.  When
you want to get more than the lowest level of reuse, and when you
don't want to rely on the genius and omniscience of your engineers
to be able to maximize reuse all by their little selves, then you
need a *process* for reuse (duh!).  Megaprogramming provides such
a process.

Now, I've been involved with the Navy STARS program, the one that's
concerned with the flight simulation domain, so I'm probably biased
in favor of megaprogramming in general and STARS in particular.

But I get the feeling that STARS is unfairly catching flack around
c.l.a for not being something it was never intended to be.  STARS
is about process-driven reuse, not about proving that Ada is cool.
Now, it just so happens that the part of STARS I'm familar with is
so heavily dependent on Ada that I'm not sure it could have been
accomplished if there were no Ada.  But I might be wrong.  And
whether or not I'm right about the importance of Ada in STARS is a
*secondary issue* for STARS.

One more time: STARS is about software engineering, not about Ada
or even about programming.  If STARS is focusing on its main goal,
well hooray for them.

All of this is, of course, only my personal take.

And my sincerest apologies for the heavy overloading of "process"
in the above.  Would someone please fix the vocabulary of this
discipline!
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen     | You guys start coding.  I'll go see     |
| crispen@foxy.hv.boeing.com | what they want.                         |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Garlington KE]

Bob Crispen (crispen@EIGHT-BALL.HV.BOEING.COM) wrote:

: do with over the years, is one such architecture.  And I gather
: you're using a family of architectures which bear some passing
: resemblance to DARTS, in that they're products of something like
: the SEI's Structural Modeling process.

Yes, the F-22 program uses Structural Modeling.

: need to do to get reuse (the architectural part).  But I don't see
: you doing the easy part (an analysis of commonality and variability
: targeted toward embodiment in a process).  Here's where I think you

That analysis was done early in the program.

: c.l.a for not being something it was never intended to be.  STARS
: is about process-driven reuse, not about proving that Ada is cool.

I don't think my comment was related to Ada; rather, despite all the years
of STARS existence, I don't hear much about it being used on any major projects.
That may just be poor P.R. on the program's point, but nonetheless, there it is.

: One more time: STARS is about software engineering, not about Ada
: or even about programming.  If STARS is focusing on its main goal,
: well hooray for them.

But isn't it about time for that goal to have been realized? If not, why not?

Note that I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I certainly don't claim to 
be an expert here. It's just that I don't see the same penetration of STARS
products as I do of, say, SEI or SPC. As a result, I wouldn't use it as a
barometer one way or the other for the use of Ada.

: +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
: | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen     | You guys start coding.  I'll go see     |
: | crispen@foxy.hv.boeing.com | what they want.                         |
: +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Bob Crispen]

Doc Elliott <helliott@LOSAT.REDSTONE.ARMY.MIL> sez:

>    From the POV of one who deals with this on a everyday basis, there are some
>explanations in order.  First of all, based on previous posts here in CLA,
>there
>are no tools available to support Ada bindings to the DIS protocol (yet?).

Doc, just about everyone who did a demo at I/ITSEC in the past 3 years
has developed a nice set of DIS Ada bindings and probably socket
bindings as well.  Developing Ada bindings isn't rocket science; it's
well within the capabilities of somebody with a year or two of Ada
experience.

The fact that some folks are charging megabucks for Ada bindings is
shameful and dumb, considering the wealth of Ada talent within the
Services and their Primes.

But put all that aside.  Surely somebody has developed for one of the
Services a simulator in Ada that has a DIS interface.  Just reuse
their bindings.  You already paid for them once.

Now as to why the heck those things were originally developed in C,
I may join Greg on that one.  Shame on those folks.  In fact, the
more or less mandated use of the C coordinate transform code last
year gave us (and anybody who didn't define their radians values as
plain old FLOAT) some constraint error problems.

Finally, the Ada Simulation Validation Program final report noted
(in 1987!) that Ada was a perfectly wonderful simulation language.
Service folks, you paid for that program.  In the meantime we and
lots of others have written all kinds of simulations in Ada.

>The SGI platform that most of our Virtual Prototypes run on is rich with
>such tools as Paradigm Sims (audio) and Software Systems Multigen which works
>well with the Paradigm "Vision Works" tools.  All of this stuff is C based,
>commercially available, pretty well rung out, and has a good user base.

Calling C from Ada is an old, well-known trick.  You or someone else
there already knows how to do it.  In some situations, you can even
make a shell script to do it automatically.  Where's the problem?
Ohhhh -- it's a "non-standard", non-portable trick.  Jeez, the guys
who are up to their asses in single-source, proprietary hardware and
software sure start getting religion when they talk about Ada, don't
they?

Yes, I know you're talking about the perception versus the reality,
but isn't it incumbent on anyone in engineering to squash nonsense
when (s)he hears it?  Good Lord, I've become Greg.  Stop me before
I post again!
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Bob Crispen                   |   Who will babysit the babysitters?  |
| crispen@foxy.hv.boeing.com    +--------------------------------------+
| (205) 461-3296                |Opinions expressed here are mine alone|
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[David Emery]

>Developing Ada bindings isn't rocket science; it's well within the
>capabilities of somebody with a year or two of Ada experience.

Oh, I beg to differ.  There's an art to doing bindings.  I've seen
(been victimized) by Ada bindings developed by junior people.  Right
now I'm trying to rework some bindings that fit that pattern.  The guy
did a nice job given his level of experience, but there are some
serious problems that affect both usage and implementation.

Part of the problem is developing/defining the binding so that it is
not tightly coupled to the specific execution environment/compiler.
It's easy to crank out a couple of 'pragma interface (C)', but very
painful to move such a binding to another compiler.  Another issue is
preventing storage leaks.  Of course, if the underlying C interface is
lousy, there's a limit to how well the Ada binding can hide warts and
flaws in the C interface.

The 'art' comes in knowing what/how/when/why to encapsulate.  After
all, Ada bindings should NOT resembe C header files (if they do,
there's no reason to do Ada.), and the art is in figuring out the best
way to identify and represent the underlying abstractions in Ada.  My
10 years of experience doing Ada bindings says that experience has
been the best teacher in this regard.  (How's that for
self-referential...)

But, with the right skills and expeience, a good engineer can crank
out a high-quality Ada binding in a (relatively) short amount of time.
And my experience has been that the cost of doing a high-quality Ada
binding is very quickly recovered by savings in debug time, etc.  Part
of the art of doing Ada bindings is to detect/prevent errors before
they get into C, and produce segmentation faults.  And, remember that
the number of users >> the nubmer of authors for Ada bindings (and
interfaces in general.)

So, Ada bindings are a good place for your best technical people, and
often a cost-effective project for consultants.  But don't use this as
a way to train junior people, or you'll suffer the consequences for
the life of the project.

				dave
--
--The preceeding opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
--The MITRE Corporation or its sponsors. 
-- "A good plan violently executed -NOW- is better than a perfect plan
--  next week"                                      George Patton
-- "Any damn fool can write a plan.  It's the execution that gets you
--  all screwed up"                              James Hollingsworth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Gregory Aharonian]

     To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being encouraged
to do their work in Ada?  Based on general DoD behavior in the past, probably
not much, and based on studies of DoD simulation publications, apparently not
much.

     For example, the November 1994 issue of SIMULATION, a publication of the
Society for Computer Simulation, is dedicated to the topic of "Military
Simulation".  You would think that many years into the regime of the Ada
Mandate, that we would see Ada all through these articles.  Guess again.
Here is a list of the articles with affliations and languages used:

	Simulation Study Aids Halon Replacement Effort for Combat Aircraft
	Air Force AFIT / AFOTEC
	SLAM II

	Real-Time Simulation-Based Planning for Computer Generated Force
	    Simulation
	US Army STRICOM / Univ. Florida
	C

	Performance Assessment of the Dead Reckoning Algorithms in DIS
	Univ. Central Florida for Defense Modeling and Simulation Office
	No language mentioned

	Use of CASE Tools as an Aid to the Verification of Complex Software
	    Systems
	An IVV - mentions DoD 5000.59
	No language mentioned

	Overview of the Air Vehicle Training Systems Demonstration Project
	Boeing / STARS
	No language mentioned


What can one conclude from this limited sampling (plus the published agendas
of other DoD simulation conferences and publications)?  That much like the
rest of DoD programming, Ada is not being used by the majority of the people
involved, and probably never will be (especially with things like SIMNET so
popular).

Once again we see the ongoing hypocrisy of the STARS effort - here a four page
article describing the use of STARS tools on a project without mentioning Ada
once in the article - more evidence of their embarassment of being associated
with Ada.

Finally, in January of 1994, the DoD issued a directive signed by Sec. Perry,
DoD 5000.59, titled "DoD modeling and simulation management", which I guess
sets policy for such activities and the goals of the Defense Modeling and
Simulation Office.  Does anyone know if DoD 5000.59 mentions Ada (and if not
why not  - after all, Mosemann's Air Force AI memo didn't mentioned Ada),
and does anyone know if anyone from AJPO has contacted DMSO (and if not,
resign)?


Greg Aharonian

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Doc Elliott]

In article <D0DGF8.IGJ@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) says:
>
>
>     To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being encouraged
>to do their work in Ada?  Based on general DoD behavior in the past, probably
>not much, and based on studies of DoD simulation publications, apparently not
>much.
>

Deletia

    From the POV of one who deals with this on a everyday basis, there are some
explanations in order.  First of all, based on previous posts here in CLA, there
are no tools available to support Ada bindings to the DIS protocol (yet?).  There are
several sets of tools in C and C++ (Loral's CLIP, I believe, is a good example,
as well as Mak Technology's VRLink).

    The perception also exists that Ada does not support graphics as well as C and
C++.  The SGI platform that most of our Virtual Prototypes run on is rich with
such tools as Paradigm Sims (audio) and Software Systems Multigen which works
well with the Paradigm "Vision Works" tools.  All of this stuff is C based,
commercially available, pretty well rung out, and has a good user base.  Also,
all of the Modualr Semi-Automated Forces (ModSAF) stuff with which you have to
play in DIS is written in C.  Big legacy.

Greg, I agree with you most of the time.  But in this case, I had my contractor
look into doing our VPS in Ada, and the result was: "Sure!  We'd love to!  Now,
about the extra gazigabuck for the additional programmer for writing the DIS
PDU interface, and oh, there's a bunch of extra effort for rendering the
graphics, and our whole team has no Ada experience, and what compilers should
we look into, and . . . ."  I was unable to overcome the reality.

BTW, anybody out there want a viable product to work on?  Build a robust set
of Ada tools for DIS interface, and you probably got a long term business
proposition.  I just wish I could afford a Windows Ada compiler...

Doc Elliott
KE4KUZ
Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
specifically stated as such.

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[David Weller]

In article <3c2jv2$gvh@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
Doc Elliott <helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil> wrote:
>In article <D0DGF8.IGJ@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) says:
>>
>    From the POV of one who deals with this on a everyday basis, there are some
>explanations in order.  First of all, based on previous posts here in CLA, there
>are no tools available to support Ada bindings to the DIS protocol (yet?).  There are
>several sets of tools in C and C++ (Loral's CLIP, I believe, is a good example,
>as well as Mak Technology's VRLink).
>
Coleman Research Corp has created Ada VR-Link, in cooperation with
Mak Technology.  Sadly, the Ada product costs more than the C++
product.  IMHO, perhaps the MOST STUPID marketing decision I've seen
(but not unusual).  One day, other vendors will follow the lead of
SGI, and proce their products on par.  Until then, the cost will
drive decisions toward C++ (the sad thing is that I've seen deltas of
even 10% make a decision maker switch to C++).  Anyway, here's the
number for COleman Research: (205)922-6010.  The guy's name is Mike
O'Connor (he's the one you talk to for tech questions).  He can also
be reashed via e-mail at moconnor@hsv.crc.com.

>    The perception also exists that Ada does not support graphics as well as C and
>C++.  The SGI platform that most of our Virtual Prototypes run on is rich with
>such tools as Paradigm Sims (audio) and Software Systems Multigen which works
>well with the Paradigm "Vision Works" tools.  All of this stuff is C based,
>commercially available, pretty well rung out, and has a good user base.  Also,
>all of the Modualr Semi-Automated Forces (ModSAF) stuff with which you have to
>play in DIS is written in C.  Big legacy.
>
Yup.  Good thing I' have clean interfacing with SGI's products (which
cost the same as their C and C++ solutions).  I'm writing Performer
stuff entirely in Ada.  Runs as fast as the C stuff, sometimes even
faster.  Yup.  At least there's no rampant ignorance on this end.

>Greg, I agree with you most of the time.  But in this case, I had my contractor
>look into doing our VPS in Ada, and the result was: "Sure!  We'd love to!  Now,
>about the extra gazigabuck for the additional programmer for writing the DIS
>PDU interface, and oh, there's a bunch of extra effort for rendering the
>graphics, and our whole team has no Ada experience, and what compilers should
>we look into, and . . . ."  I was unable to overcome the reality.
>
>BTW, anybody out there want a viable product to work on?  Build a robust set
>of Ada tools for DIS interface, and you probably got a long term business
>proposition.  I just wish I could afford a Windows Ada compiler...
>

Redstone, eh?  Gee, Coleman Research is just down the road in
Huntsville, Alabama.  GO talk to them, they might be able to cure the
ills that some of your coworkers have.  We have some very interesting
stuff we've done with Performer too.


-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
   	      Ada -- Very Cool.  Doesn't Suck.               ||  father's Ada 
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command:   ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
	|"Quitting C++ isn't so difficult, provided you show as much |
	|	persistence stopping as you did starting." dweller   |

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Anthony Gargaro]

In article <D0DGF8.IGJ@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
|> 
|>      To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being encouraged
|> to do their work in Ada?  Based on general DoD behavior in the past, probably
|> not much, and based on studies of DoD simulation publications, apparently not
|> much.
|> 

Here are two data points that you may find helpful.

The U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM)
WARFIGHTERS' Simulation (WARSIM) 2000 procurement requires the use of Ada 9X
(ISO 8652:1995).

The U.S. Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center for Simulations and Trainers
(ASC/YT) Structural Modeling Guidebook exemplars all use Ada.


\"""/ -- Anthony Gargaro                 E-Mail: abg@sei.cmu.edu -- \"""/
(###) -- SEI Resident Affiliate          Tel No: 1 412.268.5780  -- (###)
~`|'~ -- Computer Sciences Corporation   Fax No: 1 412.268.5758  -- ~`|'~

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[John Cosby]

srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>      To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being encouraged
> to do their work in Ada?  Based on general DoD behavior in the past, probably
> not much, and based on studies of DoD simulation publications, apparently not
> much. 
<snip>
>That much like the
>rest of DoD programming, Ada is not being used by the majority of the people
>involved, and probably never will be (especially with things like SIMNET so
>popular).

abg@sei.cmu.edu (Anthony Gargaro) writes:
> Here are two data points that you may find helpful.
> 
> The U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM)
> WARFIGHTERS' Simulation (WARSIM) 2000 procurement requires the use of Ada 9X
> (ISO 8652:1995).
> 
> The U.S. Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center for Simulations and Trainers
> (ASC/YT) Structural Modeling Guidebook exemplars all use Ada.

Another data point... the Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT), the first of
the Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (CATT) family of simulation systems, is well
along in development here in Orlando.  This project's software components are
written in Ada; it is the foundation of a new set of simulation systems, and
will begin replacing the currently deployed SIMNET systems sometime in late
'95 or early '96.  Everything from device interfaces to the X/Motif user
interfaces (my area) is developed in Ada; I think we might have had to write a
bit of C for a callback mechanism, but it's packaged inside an Ada wrapper.

This is a STRICOM development, like WARSIM 2000; unlike WARSIM, which
should be awarded soon (and will be in Ada9x--lucky dogs!), CCTT has been in 
progress for a couple of years now.

helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil (Doc Elliott) writes:
>First of all, based on previous posts here in CLA, there
>are no tools available to support Ada bindings to the DIS protocol (yet?).
<snip>
>BTW, anybody out there want a viable product to work on?  Build a robust set
>of Ada tools for DIS interface, and you probably got a long term business
>proposition.  I just wish I could afford a Windows Ada compiler...

Wait 'till we deliver, then ask STRICOM.  We've developed quite a bit of Ada 
DIS material, from simple network PDU generation code to event-driven DIS 
entity databases, and we're really wringing out everything we develop.
--- 
John Cosby - CCTT Semi-Automated Forces Team - cosby@greatwall.cctt.com
 No commercial intended, I just thought some of the disinformation should
 be answered.
 with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer;

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Dag Bruck]

>>>>> "GA" == Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> writes:

GA>      To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being
GA> encouraged to do their work in Ada?  Based on general DoD behavior
GA> in the past, probably not much, and based on studies of DoD
GA> simulation publications, apparently not much.

Neither should they.  For many (most?) simulation tasks there are
higher level languages or frameworks that are much more effective than
programming languages, such as, Ada, C, C++ or FORTRAN.

Note that I have a vested interest in this particular issue; I work
for a company that makes one of these simulation environments for
modelling of dynamical systems.

Dag Bruck
Dynasim AB

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Harry Rockefeller]

In article <DAG.94Dec7083743@bellman.control.lth.se>
dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes:

   >>>>> "GA" == Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> writes:

   GA>      To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being
   GA> encouraged to do their work in Ada?  Based on general DoD behavior
   GA> in the past, probably not much, and based on studies of DoD
   GA> simulation publications, apparently not much.

   Neither should they.  For many (most?) simulation tasks there are
   higher level languages or frameworks that are much more effective than
   programming languages, such as, Ada, C, C++ or FORTRAN.

I may not understand this thread due to my limited experience.  I am
in charge of producing the Software Design Document (SDD) on a
multimillion dollar military sub-contract.  We are simulating an
aircraft by producing several Cockpit Procedures Trainers.

Back when the project began we were told we had to use Ada since it is
"full 2167A".  So, in a way, YES, we were (the project is almost over)
strongly encouraged to do our work in Ada.  However, the comments I
have received both from our prime and the military on the SDD, as well
as the comments and questions we got from them in the PDR and CDRs
tell me something different.  Either, our prime and the government
didn't have Ada qualified people to critique our software, or it
wasn't important to them.  We may rule out the possibility that our
design and Ada software coding was perfect. :-) This is my experience
on this one project.  I find it hard to believe that this may be a
common practice in the industry.  Maybe others can comment on this?
--
Harry Rockefeller  | We all have our opinions    | FlightSafety International
harryr@ssd.fsi.com | but Truth is not debatable. | Simulation Systems Division
(918) 251-0500     | Isaiah 55:6&9 the Bible     | Broken Arrow, OK 74012    

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Garlington KE]

Gregory Aharonian (srctran@world.std.com) wrote:

:      To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being encouraged
: to do their work in Ada?

On the F-22, not only are new simulations being written in Ada, but some
existing FORTRAN ones are being converted for LCSS reasons.

I remember getting a STARS briefing on megapriogramming a long time ago. The
speaker urged us to get more involved with STARTS so that, for example,
we could build an airplane that integrated flight control and avionics.
We broke his heart when we described the AFTI program back in the early 80's.

Seems like STARS hasn't changed much with respect to its relevance to the
practitioners...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Michael Feldman]

In article <3c5e6t$3l9@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>,
Garlington KE <l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
>Gregory Aharonian (srctran@world.std.com) wrote:

>:      To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being encouraged
>: to do their work in Ada?

>On the F-22, not only are new simulations being written in Ada, but some
>existing FORTRAN ones are being converted for LCSS reasons.
                                               ^^^^
Can you translate for us civilians, please?

Mike Feldman

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Garlington KE]

Michael Feldman (mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu) wrote:
: Garlington KE <l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
: >On the F-22, not only are new simulations being written in Ada, but some
: >existing FORTRAN ones are being converted for LCSS reasons.
:                                                ^^^^
: Can you translate for us civilians, please?

LCSS - Life Cycle Software Support. (Surely everyone who claims to work in the
Ada world knows LCSS! ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[David Emery]

>LCSS - Life Cycle Software Support. (Surely everyone who claims to work in the
>Ada world knows LCSS! ;)

Why???  LCSS is a DoD-unique (actually, Air Force-unique, I suspect)
acronym.  It is explicitly NOT the case that everyone using Ada is
doing so on a DoD project.  

				dave
--
--The preceeding opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
--The MITRE Corporation or its sponsors. 
-- "A good plan violently executed -NOW- is better than a perfect plan
--  next week"                                      George Patton
-- "Any damn fool can write a plan.  It's the execution that gets you
--  all screwed up"                              James Hollingsworth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[Garlington KE]

David Emery (emery@goldfinger.mitre.org) wrote:

: Why???  LCSS is a DoD-unique (actually, Air Force-unique, I suspect)
: acronym.  It is explicitly NOT the case that everyone using Ada is
: doing so on a DoD project.  

Everyone should have an appreciation for the _concept_ of LCSS since that's
the first motivation for the creation of the Ada language. (BTW, both USA
and USN also speak LCSS.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.