Mindless Transitions!

Mindless Transitions!

[GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD]

There's been a great deal of talk about how much these mandates
affect gov't contractors, but more frightening to me is the storm
looming on the horizon which will soon envelop organic software
developers like me!

Managers from the top on down are in a headlong rush to comply
with the move to Ada like lemmings marching to the sea.  I can't
speak for all types of software, but for information systems
"Ada Only" is going to cause an incredible drop in productivity.

I am an Ada proponent. I recognized and agreed with all the benefits
when I was first introduced to the lady, however, as I learned more
I found that I and others like me all over the gov't didn't have the
skills to write info systems from scratch. So, we need tools to fill
the gaps. I'm lucky I am developing a PC system and found AdaSAGE
>from EG&G to plug the holes. My customers demand slick looking, easy 
to use, fast operating software. With just Ada alone I couldn't have
delivered what they expect. Neither could any of the 150-200 programmers
in our organization. All, save me, are still in denial.

I agree with Jean Ichbiah's statement that the lack of an acceptable
interface between Ada and SQL is the greatest impediment to the further
spread of Ada.  I also find the need to process data a screen at the time
rather than a field at the time. I know these things can be done because
AdaSAGE performs them wonderfully. So, someone is smart enough to write
these things in Ada, but the gov't hasn't seen fit to find or cultivate
the training necessary to bring us organic programmers to that level. The
only training were able to get is very basic and doesn't have anything to do 
with information systems programming.

Remember I'm a proponent, but if someone is going to mandate Ada then they
also need to take responsibility for making it possible to carry out
those mandates.

Ken McCook
Computer Systems Developer
Warner Robins Air Logistics Center
(DSN) 468-3224         Commercial  (912) 926-3224
Email kmccook@wrdis01.af.mil

P.S. I could always be just uninformed and sitting in the dark!

Re: Mindless Transitions!

[Bruce Benson]

In article <9012191446.AA10320@logdis1.wr.aflc.af.mil> kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) writes:

<good stuff deleted>
>"Ada Only" is going to cause an incredible drop in productivity.

This is normal and expected in any change of any real significants. The
problem is that most managers don't realize and don't plan for this. I
also wonder if people who sign these mandates get any estimates of
productivity loss, schedule impacts, decrease of quality, etc., etc.  This
is usually called a cost estimate.

<more good stuff deleted>

If we transitioned pilots to new aircraft the way we transition programmers
to new technology, we wouldn't have very many pilots left.

* Bruce Benson                   + Internet  - bwb@sei.cmu.edu +       +
* Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407      +    >--|>
* Carnegie Mellon University     + Voice     - 412 268 8469    +       +
* Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890       +                             +  US Air Force

Ada Productivity (Was: Mindless Transitions!)

[Charles H. Sampson]

In article <9012191446.AA10320@logdis1.wr.aflc.af.mil> kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) writes:
>
>                                 ... for information systems
>"Ada Only" is going to cause an incredible drop in productivity.

     The Army's STANFINS project would appear to be a counterexample to
this.  It's a good-sized MIS project and the official line, from both the
contractor and Army personnel, is that it's a roaring success.  I consider
their very high productivity claims to be somewhat suspect, but even if
they are toned down substantially, they're still impressive.

     There's an interesting sidelight to STANFINS.  The original was a COBOL
system, of course, and the COBOL programmers had to be retrained to Ada.
Ralph Crafts tells the story that when the programmers were asked to return
to COBOL when STANFINS was finished, they not only refused, but they threat-
ened to quit if they were forced.

                              Charlie

Re: Ada Productivity (Was: Mindless Transitions!)

[Andy DeFaria]

>/ hpclapd:comp.lang.ada / kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) /  5:16 am  Dec 18, 1990 /

>I am an Ada proponent. I recognized and agreed with all the benefits
>when I was first introduced to the lady, however, as I learned more
>I found that I and others like me all over the gov't didn't have the
>skills to write info systems from scratch.

Not intended as  a flame but  who had the  skills to write the systems from
scratch in the first place?  I understand you  to really  mean that to you,
and  the others, Ada seems  too difficult to learn and  use to produce info
systems from scratch.  Yeah there are some new  constructs and concepts but
I'm sure that if you take someone off the street with  a little exposure to
programing (only one college FORTRAN class) and give them a little training
in COBOL, tell them that there job is to  now  create  a large  info system
from scratch using COBOL, that his attitude would  be  the same as yours "I
can't do that!".  Give it some time.  Learn the language better.   It's not
really that difficult (but it can be if you want it to).

>I agree with Jean Ichbiah's statement that the lack of an acceptable
>interface between Ada and SQL is the greatest impediment to the further
>spread of Ada.

We've got a Ada binding to SQL.

Re: Mindless Transitions!

[Jim West (Stealth Contractor)]

  My specialty and interests are with the X Window System and graphics.  I too
am a proponent of Ada, but for the last 6 years I've done graphic work with
both Ada and C (as of late) and I don't believe that Ada should be doing
graphics at this time.  C is much more proficient at it.  One of the main
reasons I say this is that all graphic systems are not re-entrant which means
you basically can't use them from tasks.  Another is that systems such as
X Window, and PHIGS are implemented in C and are generally expected to be
used from same.  I find that programmers tend to create a chest full of
convenience routines that essentially try to convert the C stuff (like
pointers) into Ada defined structures.  I really believe that more work
is going on than should be done.  My main concern with this is for mission
critical applications, generally you want code that is _both_ fast and
efficient.

  I know that there is considerable work being done with Ada and X but it
still has a way to go.  

  Having been on a couple of projects (DoD) with workstations being the
interface and having Ada mandated has caused some problems.  I have found
that productivity levels for the development of these interfaces just
really are not up to par.

  As I mentioned above, I am a proponent of Ada, and will continue to do
work with X and PHIGS because I enjoy the challenge, but I don't believe
that Ada should be mandated blindly.

  Well, I'm stepping off the soap box now so that someone else may have
a turn. :^)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jim West                      |  The Schainker Converse
 west@widgit.enet.dec.com      |  to Hoare's Law :
                               |
 These are my opinions.        |   Inside every small problem
 Digital has no idea           |     is a larger problem struggling
 what I'm  saying.             |       to get out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada Productivity (Was: Mindless Transitions!)

[waltrip]

In article <2602@cod.NOSC.MIL>, sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
> In article <9012191446.AA10320@logdis1.wr.aflc.af.mil> kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) writes:
>>
>>                                 ... for information systems
>>"Ada Only" is going to cause an incredible drop in productivity.
	Well, there IS a price to be paid and, as a previous poster noted,
	program managers may neglect to account for it.  But a mandate to use
	Ada is the only way the government can produce a market large enough
	for all of the various productivity tools to be produced.

	The more serious problems for the government are to ensure that:
	1.	The language is adequate for the missions.
	2.	STANDARDS are produced for bindings such as to
		SQL and the X Window System.
	3.	The runtime model stays current with advanced 
		operating system concepts.
> 
>      The Army's STANFINS project would appear to be a counterexample to
> this.  It's a good-sized MIS project and the official line, from both the
> contractor and Army personnel, is that it's a roaring success.  I consider
> their very high productivity claims to be somewhat suspect, but even if
> they are toned down substantially, they're still impressive.
> 
>      There's an interesting sidelight to STANFINS.  The original was a COBOL
> system, of course, and the COBOL programmers had to be retrained to Ada.
> Ralph Crafts tells the story that when the programmers were asked to return
> to COBOL when STANFINS was finished, they not only refused, but they threat-
> ened to quit if they were forced.
	Not surprising, right?  Which leads to a further point:  part of making
	sure the language is adequate is making sure that it continues to
	embody advanced language concepts.  This will generally make it more
	attractive to learn (and to teach) and more difficult to give up once
	it has been learned.
> 
>                               Charlie

c.f.waltrip	<waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.