From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cebec2c33ffff82,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) Subject: AJPO is still clueless about the reality of DoD Ada rejection Date: 1996/03/15 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 142910863 organization: The World Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: My recent posting stirred some phone calls. What a joke. A programmer from a DoD contractor tired of the pathetic rationalizations coming out of AJPO (like that COTS is compatible with the Ada Mandate - what a lie), sent me the following observation of how programming really gets done inside the DoD. The fundamental Ada management policy is still dishonesty - dishonest analysis of Ada vendors and contractors, dishonest measurement of DoD language use, dishonest justifications for porky STARS, etc. etc. ==================== Greg, I laugh when I see: > Ada is still required any time new software is written. I work on a large military project. We develop 80% of our new code in C, 10% in C++, and 10% in Ada (my best estimate). We have to work lots of COTS software into our system and we integrate on Unix platforms. That is why we write most of our code in C. It's a whole lot easier than retrofitting Ada to a myriad of C interfaces. Writing Ada bindings for the C universe and COTS software takes a lot of time and is often an error prone process, as it is with many foreign language interface endeavors. The project I work on has 80 software engineers. Has 2 million lines of delivered code and is a mission critical DoD system. It is a perfect candidate for Ada in the DoD mindset. It is a large software engineering project. Ada is avoided with every caveat possible. We are working in a rapid-prototyping environment where integrating 3rd Party COTS software quickly is paramount. Our schedules are very aggressive. Using C instead of Ada helps us meet our schedules quickly. Our C SDEs are far more advanced and robust than our Ada SDEs. Our Ada SDE symbolic debugger won't even attach to a UNIX process and the compiler vendor is a major player in the Ada market. This is laughable in 1996. The language lawyers can argue this anyway that they want, but the facts are the facts. Software engineering economics prevail. C is a lot cheaper, quicker, and more reliable than Ada for this project. ==================== Ada avoided as much as possible. Ada tools still trailing C tools in 1996. HEAR THAT AJPO???????????????????????? ==================== Here is what originally provoked the programmer: Ken Garlington wrote: > > Gregory Aharonian wrote: > > > > Reflecting this, in a recently Air Force Scientific Advisory Board report > > titled "New World Vistas", the panel, along with pushing COTS greatly, also > > suggested that the Air Force should cease developing software tools and > > compilers, abandon the DoD's Ada computer language mandate; and depend on > > aircraft manufacturers to design aircraft cockpits. > > I called Joan McGarity at AJPO (703-681-2463) to find out more > about the SAB report. Here's what she told me: > > She confirmed that Mr. Paige's office is investigating the > paragraph in the recent Scientific Advisory Board report > that was critical of Ada. Both John Goodenough and Larry > Druffel have indicated that Ada was never discussed by the > SAB, and that the words in the report were not coordinated > with the panel prior to publication. > > As a result, I doubt that the SAB report will carry much weight. It > certainly was not reflected in the new DoD acquision reform direction: > > The new DoDD 5001. and DoDI 5000.2 does not change DoD > Ada policy. In particular, Ada is still required any time > new software is written, and DoDD 3405.1 still provides > the details regarding waivers, etc. There will be a new > DoDD 3405.1 released very soon (it was held up to allow > DoDI 5000.2 to be released first), but it will not > significantly change. Look, COTS and the Ada Mandate are incompatible, and where they aren't, Ada is still rejected anyways by DoD programmers. The Ada Mandate is the 55-mph-speed-limit regulation for DoD programmers. Sounds nice in theory, ignored by everyone in practice, because the waiver policy is still a joke. How can Paige's office expect anyone to take them seriously about enforcing the Mandate when they can't even track what's written in DoD software reports? And I don't know what high schools they go trawling through looking for people to serve on Defense Science Boards, but the only thing worse than having the SAB panel discuss ditching Ada is that in its discussions of Air Force software activities (according to Goodenough and Druffel) is that Ada wasn't discussed at all. Greg Aharonian