In Defense of the Mandate

[att!att-out!cbnewsl!willett@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (david.c.willett)]

D.C. Willett said:

DCW:	I claim that an arbitrary embedded system (J) written in Ada is
DCW:(on average) easier for an independent programming team to understand and
DCW:subsequently enhance than one written in any previous language.  Thus,
DCW:it is easier for independent programming teams to create variants of that 
DCW:system (J', J'', J'''.....) than it would be if J were written in some olde
r
DCW:language.  That capability is needed if we have to fight protracted 
DCW:conflicts like World War II, Korea, or VietNam.

To which Greg Aharonian responded:

GA>Unfortunately, a growing number of real soldiers disagree with you, and
GA>are using C/C++.  For example, there was that Army group involved with
GA>JINTACCS that developed a fielded communications system in C++ using Motif.
GA>Or people trhoughout the Air Force using C++ for database development.
GA>And if you saw Ralph Craft's comment in Government Computer News, you
GA>will understand that this use of C/C++ is common by people in the Armed
GA>Services.
	
	Apples vs. oranges, Greg.  The database example is a support 
system, not an embedded one.  I don't know about the communications system,
but it would not surprise me if that was a one-of-a-kind prototype.  It 
makes sense for the military to use COTS tools/product where such use doesn't
compromise combat readiness or reproduceability.  The Mandate makes sense 
where use of COTS would.

GA>
GA>What is hurt Ada is that the DoD has refused to fund a truly honest
GA>assessment of the microeconomics of defense software development vis-a-vis
GA>Ada and C/C++.  The old Mosemann critiques were a joke, the new ones
GA>probably not that much better, and people will continue to make decisions
GA>based on meaningless data.
	
	I believe that economics is irrelevant.  We are talking about the 
mission of DoD, which is to kill the bad guys.

GA>
GA>Also, given Bosnia, the protracted conflicts arguments is kind of moot.
	
	History's jury is still out on this one.  The notion that the lack 
of a competing superpower renders the protracted conflict passe remains 
unproven.  Precedents otherwise include the French in VietNam, the Israeli
experience, and North/South Korea.  I'll conceed that with the U.S. lead 
in technology, a protracted conflict is not likely in the next decade,
but that doesn't mean it's safe to dismantle the infrastructure required to
support one.


-- 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies
If God had wanted us to go around without any clothes, we all would have
been born naked!....er...ahh... Let me rephrase that.