From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 4 Jun 93 14:10:16 GMT From: att!att-out!cbnewsl!willett@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (david.c.willett) Subject: In Defense of the Mandate Message-ID: List-Id: 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.