Re: Ada in Iraq

[Bill Findlay <yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 23/4/03 18:51, in article
bebbba07.0304230951.59468757@posting.google.com, "Russ"
<18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> 
> I work for a US government lab that does extensive work in air traffic
> management (ATM). We will have major input into the future of ATM in
> the US. As some of you may recall, I have a problem with some of Ada's
> syntax, but I am nevertheless convinced that Ada is fundamentally
> solid and is the right choice for the kind of software we develop and
> will develop in the future.
> 
> Unfortunately, however, none of my colleagues is even willing to
> consider using Ada. It's considered a "non-starter." C, C++, and Java
> are the only languages considered. Ada wasn't even on the radar screen
> until I brought it up. Also, I get the impression that professors who
> study safety-critical systems are mostly using Java. "Real-time Java"
> is gaining major momentum, and I fear that it could crush Ada.

I find the idea that ATM systems might be programmed in C, C++, or
Java quite terrifying.

With C and C++, at least everyone knows they are skating on thin ice.

But Java has been sold as 'secure' and 'easy to use'.

In fact its concurrency support is sloppy, in ways that are highly likely to
cause latent errors. The RTSJ 'real time' fixup engineering that has been
done on it is a quixotic attempt to fit it for a completely inappropriate
mode of use and does little or nothing to remedy its intrinsic defects.

-- 
Bill-Findlay chez blue-yonder.co.uk ("-" => "")