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=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 7 Sep 93 18:13:59 GMT From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian) Subject: ARPA blows $100 million chance to help Ada Message-ID: List-Id: The August 30, 1993, issue of Electronic Engineering Times, page 20 has an article titled "Ada promotes commercial CAD-tool use" in which it starts out with: "The Pentagon wants to use commercial CAD tools to sharply reduce the time needed to get embedded signal processors into the field. So it will spend nearly $100 million over the next four years to get the costly tools into the hands of defense electronics companies. ARPA is investing the time and money to develop a network for commercial design tools needed to speed prototyping. Mark Richards is the ARPA contact point. Lockheed Sanders is getting $42.4 million, and Marietta $53.4 million, and according to ARPA, after four years, industry will pick up the ball. "Commercializating it means the program is self-sustaining by industry", Richards says. In two ways, this is a great example of how the DoD's leading software research agency absolutely despises the Ada programming language. First, it seems that when it cares about something, ARPA is willing to intervene into the private sector. Two examples are this CAD expenditure, and its attempts over the past two years to influence the future of the parallel processing industry by dictating which computers its contractors could buy. So when it cares about something, ARPA is willing to spend BIG time. Apparently not so with Ada. Second, ARPA currently has no plans to have some of this $100 million spent on Ada, for example, having its contractors develop hardware CAD design tools using VHDL that have integrated hooks to Ada, an easy task convert the language similarities between Ada and VHDL. After all the embedded hardware being designed with these tools has to be programmed, presumably in Ada, so integrating Ada and VHDL in these tools make sense in itself, if not for helping to push the Ada language. What's the easiest way to kill Ada consideration outside the Mandated world by an advocate of another language? "Why waste time with Ada? If ARPA thinks the language is useless, shouldn't we also?". Since ARPA has $100 million to play with intervening in the commercial markets, if the DoD is even marginally supportive of Ada, at least a few million should be attached to some Ada/VHDL stuff. IF. -- ************************************************************************** Greg Aharonian srctran@world.std.com Source Translation & Optimization 617-489-3727 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178