Re: NRC Study Report

Re: NRC Study Report

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93]

Susan Carlson <carlsons@NS1.SW-ENG.FALLS-CHURCH.VA.US> writes:
>        1.  Require Ada for DoD warfighting software;
>
    Does this mean only for software that drives a tank or aims a gun?
    Or does it include command&control, etc.? What was once referred
    to as "Mission Critical" software seems to me to encompass
    "warfighting" software - is this (W.F.S/W) a subset of "Mission
    Critical?"

>        2.  Drop Ada requirement for other DoD software;
>
    I thought that the current requirement was strictly for "Mission
    Critical" and never encompassed things like payroll programs.
    (although it wouldn't be discouraged.) Perhaps my ignorance is
    showing.

>        3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
>                Ada requirement entirely;
>
    Are you sure that's enough? I think GNAT was one of the smartest
    decisions ever made in promoting widespread use of Ada - make a
    good quality compiler available free to anyone who wants it. If
    DoD would drop a significant chunk of change into developing
    support tools (targeted to at least a PC/Windows environment) and
    again make them available in the same way GNAT is, (Oh. Yeah.
    Spend a few bucks for *advertizing* that fact as well!) I think
    we'd see a dramatic increase in Ada usage in many fields. Here's
    my initial shopping list - demonstrating that $15m is probably not
    nearly enough:

    Visual Programming Tool - Draw logic diagrams which can be
    "compiled" to Ada source.

    GUI builder (It would be darned nice to see one of these things
    which let you actually maintain the GUI software through the
    builder. And yes, it *is* possible, but it would be a lot of work
    to make one that did.)

    Avionics quality compiler targeted to popular embedded processors.

    Configuration management/library system to support
    building/maintaining large software projects.

    Simulators/Debuggers/Static Analyzers/Dynamic Analyzers/etc.

    Automated test tools (Analyze a source code module, generate test
    inputs, run & verify results)


    The list could go on and on. If anyone at DoD would like me to
    help them spend some money, I'd be glad to take the job!

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        561.796.8997
M/S 731-96                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Fax:        561.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600                  Internet:   CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
    "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend; inside a dog,
    it's too dark to read..."

        --  Groucho Marx
===============================================================================

Re: NRC Study Report

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <96110212181443@psavax.pwfl.com>, "Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93" <condicma@PWFL.COM> writes:

>>        3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
>>                Ada requirement entirely;
>>
>     Are you sure that's enough? I think GNAT was one of the smartest
>     decisions ever made in promoting widespread use of Ada - make a
>     good quality compiler available free to anyone who wants it. If
>     DoD would drop a significant chunk of change into developing
>     support tools (targeted to at least a PC/Windows environment) and
>     again make them available in the same way GNAT is, (Oh. Yeah.
>     Spend a few bucks for *advertizing* that fact as well!) I think
>     we'd see a dramatic increase in Ada usage in many fields. Here's

Although GNAT funding was a good start, it is not necessarily the
case that more such funding is the best way to do it. Free market
competition might be better, especially if such tools are built
such that they can be used in civilian projects.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: NRC Study Report

[Dave Wood]

Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93 wrote:
> 
> >        3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
> >                Ada requirement entirely;
> >
>     Are you sure that's enough? I think GNAT was one of the smartest
>     decisions ever made in promoting widespread use of Ada - make a
>     good quality compiler available free to anyone who wants it. If
>     DoD would drop a significant chunk of change into developing
>     support tools (targeted to at least a PC/Windows environment) and
>     again make them available in the same way GNAT is, 

Super.  Rather than strengthen the market so that existing
independent software vendors can have a reason to stay in 
the business and even expand upon what is already available, 
let's throw some tax money at a contractor who will either 
(a) drive the ISVs out of business through unfair funded 
competition or (more likely) (b) waste a lot of tax money 
making junk software.  Have we learned nothing from the 
mammoth programs of the 80's, like ALS?  Not only were they 
a collosal waste, but they also resulted in a contractor-
oriented rather than ISV-oriented Ada community, setting 
us back a decade against C/C++ and some other languages.

It's already virtually impossible to make a profit out of
compilers (worse for, but not exclusive to, Ada), meaning
ISVs need to focus on value-added tools.  You propose to
government-fund the ISVs out of that business too?

>     (Oh. Yeah.
>     Spend a few bucks for *advertizing* that fact as well!) I think

Advertising is vastly overrated and incredibly expensive.
I think our industry has more pressing problems.

>     we'd see a dramatic increase in Ada usage in many fields. Here's
>     my initial shopping list - demonstrating that $15m is probably not
>     nearly enough:

[snip]

All of these tools already exist in one form or another for
one or more platforms.  The trick is to continue to make them
better and better.  You don't do that by throwing government
money at competing freeware - quite the opposite.  Whatever
happened to the golden goose of COTS software?  I presume
that when the government pines for Ada products to be "COTS",
they have in mind something like Delphi, not something like
"Uncle Joe's Shareware Code Generator".

>     The list could go on and on. If anyone at DoD would like me to
>     help them spend some money, I'd be glad to take the job!

Please don't.  It would be better if you could come up
with a way to (a) incentivize (not coerce) government 
contractors to use Ada products, and (b) help support
the continued development and enhancement of COTS Ada 
products from existing ISVs.  

I'll give you an example of the former.  The claim is 
that using Ada requires a bit more of up-front investment, 
with the benefit of downstream maintenance savings.  Since
most contractors don't care a fig about downstream savings,
why should they bid Ada?  They should care more that using 
Ada might make their contract more expensive up front, causing
them to lose the bid.  Solution: allow a contractor proposing 
Ada to bid a higher price compared to one bidding C, without 
putting the Ada bidder at a disadvantage in winning the
contract - essentially like a golf handicap.  Being good
capitalists, the contractor will want to bid in a way
that gives them the higher up-front cash flow, thus 
providing a kind of affirmative action for Ada.

If the government really believes that Ada is technically
superior and that the investment will be recouped 
downstream, then doesn't something like this make sense?
If the government DOESN'T believe this, then what good
is Ada at all?  Why spend even one more tax dime on Ada?

I agree with you on two things though: $15M isn't very
much money, and GNAT is a net good thing for the Ada
community.  Just keep in mind that too much of a good 
thing can be counter-productive to the long-range goal.

-- Dave Wood
-- Speaking strictly for myself

Re: NRC Study Report

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93]

Larry Kilgallen <kilgallen@EISNER.DECUS.ORG> writes:
>>>      3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
>>>              Ada requirement entirely;
>>>
>> $15M/year ain't a lot.  I'd consider that kind of funding level a
>> disincentive for investment from commercial providers.  But again,
>> that's just IMHO.
>
>I would think it should be enough to run information services but not
>fund development projects.  Information provided freely to all is of
>help to the Ada community.  Information targeted at military officials
>should ensure that when someone transfers back and forth between the
>mandated and non-mandated military software worlds they know about
>Ada in either case.
>
    Well, I'd be curious to see what $15m/year in "information
    services" would buy. And I'd also be curious to see how that's
    going to get Ada into widespread use.

    I'm not against advertizing & publicity, but it would seem that
    $15m probably isn't going to buy a whole lot of that. If it's
    money spent on maintaining some sort of "office" to answer
    inquiries, I'd suspect that's not going to do much that the
    Internet isn't already doing better.

    I'd think that "infrastructure" would be better served by
    developing tools of one kind or another similar to GNAT - which
    has done a good job so far of "priming the pump". If some core
    tools were built which could be refined in the private sector into
    differentiated products, maybe that would help get even more
    developers interested? $15m/year could buy some pretty impressive
    tool development - provided it didn't get covered over by a thick
    layer of administratium.

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        561.796.8997
M/S 731-96                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Fax:        561.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600                  Internet:   CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
    "That which belongs to another."

        --  Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink.
===============================================================================

NRC Study Report

[Susan Carlson]

The National Research Council Committee on Past and Present Contexts
for the Use of Ada in the Department of Defense made the following 
recommendations to DoD today:

	1.  Require Ada for DoD warfighting software;

	2.  Drop Ada requirement for other DoD software;

	3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
		Ada requirement entirely;

	4.  Embed programming language decisions into a Software
		Engineering Plan Review process.

The panel will provide a formal written report detailing its
recommendations and rationale to the DoD in the near future.


Source:  Charles B. Engle, Jr., Ph.D., Director, Ada Joint Program Office


-- 
Susan Carlson                             carlsons@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us
AdaIC/IITRI                                   703/681-2464 or 800/232-4211

Re: NRC Study Report

[David Weller]

In article <55b3oh$ba6@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us>,
Susan Carlson <carlsons@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> wrote:
>
>
>The National Research Council Committee on Past and Present Contexts
>for the Use of Ada in the Department of Defense made the following 
>recommendations to DoD today:
>
Of course, it raises more questions than answers at the moment... :-)

>	1.  Require Ada for DoD warfighting software;
>
If it's not for warfighting, doesn't that mean it (usually) falls
under the budget axe?  I can understand R&D, but if I interpret it
broadly, it means pretty much everything is "warfighting".  Then
again, a narrow interpretation means: Things That Go Boom Or The
Things That Deliver Them.

>	2.  Drop Ada requirement for other DoD software;
>
One could say this is formalization of the status quo.  Certainly Greg
would :-)

>	3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
>		Ada requirement entirely;
>
$15M/year ain't a lot.  I'd consider that kind of funding level a
disincentive for investment from commercial providers.  But again,
that's just IMHO.

>	4.  Embed programming language decisions into a Software
>		Engineering Plan Review process.
>

Yeah, that should keep it free of bias  (very big :-)

-- 
    Visit the Ada 95 Booch Components Homepage: www.ocsystems.com/booch
     This is not your father's Ada -- www.adahome.com <== Note new URL!

Re: NRC Study Report

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <55dnno$4d2@dfw.dfw.net>, dweller@dfw.net (David Weller) writes:
> In article <55b3oh$ba6@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us>,
> Susan Carlson <carlsons@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> wrote:

>>	1.  Require Ada for DoD warfighting software;
>>
> If it's not for warfighting, doesn't that mean it (usually) falls
> under the budget axe?  I can understand R&D, but if I interpret it
> broadly, it means pretty much everything is "warfighting".  Then
> again, a narrow interpretation means: Things That Go Boom Or The
> Things That Deliver Them.

I would suspect that many logistics function would be viewed as not
being "warfighting" software.  A catalog of unused real estate holdings
would certainly not be cut from the budget, since it is designed to save
money.

>>	3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
>>		Ada requirement entirely;
>>
> $15M/year ain't a lot.  I'd consider that kind of funding level a
> disincentive for investment from commercial providers.  But again,
> that's just IMHO.

I would think it should be enough to run information services but not
fund development projects.  Information provided freely to all is of
help to the Ada community.  Information targeted at military officials
should ensure that when someone transfers back and forth between the
mandated and non-mandated military software worlds they know about
Ada in either case.

Larry Kilgallen