Off the record, Pentagon "admits" its apathy to Ada

Off the record, Pentagon "admits" its apathy to Ada

[Gregory Aharonian]

   One of the problems of suppressing dissent over Ada policy and management
is that reality tends to be put aside for genuflecting.  Has the majority of
the DoD rejected Ada?  Officially no, unofficially probably yes, especially
since the DoD has consistently refused to measure programming language use
inside the DoD.

   Consider then the following article that appeared in the October 21 issue
of the "Inside the Air Force" newsletter, page 7 (Ada pablum left out, "^^^"
are mine):

	"The DoD's choice of Ada for use in weapon system programs
	has caught on very slowly among the services, despite initial
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
	hopes that Ada would reduce costs and smooth complications
	in software maintenance throughout the DoD, Pentagon officials
	and industry observers are saying.  It is hoped, however, that
	Ada9X, could make Ada more competitive and more commonly used
	across DoD and the services, one DoD official said.

	Contributing to the sluggishness with which Ada has been adopted
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
	by DoD is a relative lack of software developers who are well
	versed in the primarily military-oriented language.  Ada is a
	"very experience demanding language", for which there is a steep
	learning curve, a fact that has not enticed a large pool of
	programmers to learn what is considered a quite specialized
	skill.  "Not many people speak Ada", said one source.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	The use of Ada has "never really [been] institutionalized" by
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	DoD, which had intended Ada to be a common software language
	for its weapon systems programs, according to a source.  A
	complicating factor has been that it is not very cost-effective
	to update programs written in other languages to Ada, according
	to the DoD official.  "We are still maintaining older programs
	in legacy code", the official said.

	The programming difficulties associated with Ada were intended
	to be offset by the benefits of improved maintainability and
	reusability of Ada software, according to one observer. However,
	in an environment of declining budgets with relatively few new
	weapons programs, there is not much increase in potential users
	for Ada, a DoD source said.

I would like to know who these DoD officials are, and why their comments
have to be made anonymously.  I thought we were living in the new era of
"Ada openness" kicked off at the Ada Summit.  Because between the lines,
their comments imply that the majority of the DoD, fifteen years into Ada,
isn't using Ada.

It might help if these DoD officials also point out that it doesn't aid DoD
efforts to use Ada when you have Air Force efforts like KBSA, the non-Ada AI
CASE effort that everyone refuses to examine in light of the Ada Mandate, or
when the DoD service research agencies fund mostly non-Ada efforts.  How do
you expect people to learn the "difficult" Ada language if you are paying them
to program something else?

But I suppose if I am too stupid to analyze the raw data of the AJPO survey,
I am too stupid to analyze anything else.

Greg Aharonian

Re: Off the record, Pentagon "admits" its apathy to Ada

[Kevin Weise]

In article <D047DF.M3E@world.std.com>,
Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>   Consider then the following article that appeared in the October 21 issue
>of the "Inside the Air Force" newsletter, page 7 
>
>	Contributing to the sluggishness with which Ada has been adopted
>	by DoD is a relative lack of software developers who are well
>	versed in the primarily military-oriented language.  
>
>	"Not many people speak Ada", said one source.
>
>I would like to know who these DoD officials are, and why their comments
>have to be made anonymously.  
>

Well, for once I agree with Greg.  It's a good point.  I'd like to
follow up with my own experience, which is that its damned hard for
people with Ada experience to get staffed on Ada projects.  

pragma Flame (On);

I started teaching Ada at Martin-Marietta in the early '80's, left there
in 1985 when I realized that the ONLY way I was going to get to use Ada 
was to find a project at a different company.  I worked at E-Systems in St.
Petersburg, FL for quit a while and did get some great experience using
Ada in communications systems (none of which were mentioned in the AdaIC
projects list, BTW).  Left there because of what I perceived to be
management problems regarding software in general and Ada in particular.
I worked at Reflectone in Tampa FL, but was passed up for an Air Force
project (ATF?, actually run by Loral) even though I was the only one
there with significant Ada experience.  I've been here at COLSA for 3
years now, and the only Ada use that I've had has been for approx. 9
months on a simulation system that has lost its funding in the
post-Cold War era.  Right now, I'm working on a project using C++ on a
PC-based system.  All the original arguments for not using Ada (need it
right away, can't afford retraining or expensive development
environments, etc.) have been swept away, even though R&R Software could
have provided us with an Ada solution.  

I have found it *extremely* difficult to find a position on a real-world
project using Ada, even though I have had years of experience.  And what
about all the other people with whom I've worked?  They've experienced 
the same problem.  My wife was Chairperson of Huntsville SIGAda several
years ago.  She's running benchmarks now... as she has been for the last
three years.  COLSA operates the Advanced Research Center and the
Simulation Center for the USASSDC.  Our management says "the customer"
has not been mandating the use of Ada for years, and now says that Ada
is dead.  In this era of "rightsizing", they appear to be prepared to
back that up with pink slips.  I know of several projects here from
USASSDC and MICOM that have simply ignored the mandate.  And I'm tired
of being passed over because I "don't have the background".  I sometimes
believe I'm being passed over because I *DO* have Ada experience.

pragma Flame (Off);

I've probably put myself at risk here just by responding.  And yes, I
probably could have worked AN-BSY, or some other big project for Major 
Defense Contractor if I had been willing to become a high-tech migrant
worker moving from New Jersey to Los Angeles to Lord-knows-where-next
when the current project ends.  But that's a different issue.  The
bottom line is that I can't buy the argument that there aren't enough 
Ada people when the powers that be don't even try to find them, or even
to use the ones they have.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Weise			weisek@source.asset.com
COLSA Corporation		Voice - (205) 922-1512 ext. 2115
6726 Odyssey Drive		FAX   - (205) 971-0002
Huntsville, AL  35806
{Standard Disclaimers about my opinions & my employer's opinions}
{... which are in conflict often enough}
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Admire those who seek the truth;
  avoid those who find it."		Marcel Proust