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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,7d7ee3c3e9e9e103 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,7d7ee3c3e9e9e103 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,9f9e8bd17e4d4c4d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-11 19:04:06 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!blanket.mitre.org!linus.mitre.org!linus!mbunix!eachus From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Eiffel for DoD development? Date: 11 Oct 94 10:05:10 Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Message-ID: References: <85BA3295BE6@annwfn.com> <36h4bp$k96@source.asset.com> <1994Oct3.190144.23825@sei.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: spectre.mitre.org In-reply-to: jws@seeker.tiac.net's message of 8 Oct 1994 12:37:14 GMT Xref: bga.com comp.lang.eiffel:2250 comp.object:7267 comp.lang.ada:6800 Date: 1994-10-11T10:05:10+00:00 List-Id: Gee I was trying to end this debate, but some people insist on not "getting it." In article jws@seeker.tiac.net (Jeffrey W. Stulin) writes: > > The optimal number is one. > Absurd. That is like saying that DOD should standardize on one type of > screwdriver! The if I turn that around, it becomes clear who is being absurd. How many different 1" 10-32 Pan-head screws should a maintenance depot have to stock? Slotted and Phillips, or can they agree to just stock the Phillips head? Do you want them to include 23 other types of screws just in case some mechanic doesn't like Phillips screwdrivers and prefers Allen wrenches? This is the right way to look at the issue. There may be better ways of tightening some fasteners, but the DoD HAS to pay attention to the cost of new tools, training, stocking issues, etc. There has to be a significant payoff to justify a switch. > A reason for the profusion of languages is wide range of potential > applications; No language is appropriate for all situations. Yawn! Who said that such a magic language existed? Ada was designed to be appropriate for all DoD embedded applications, and has proven to have a wider domain of applicability. But the policy is designed to allow for exceptions when they occur. > What DOD should be doing is a compromise: keep a short list of accepted > languages and let each development project choose the best language (from > the list) for the job. Ah, so you have read the policy, and realized that this is exactly what is done? No? Try again then. As I remember it, the list started with eight languages and has shrunk as some of those languages went away. (TACPOL and JOVIAL J3 for example.) But there are some languages which never have and never will made the list. Eiffel is one, would you care to guess others? In another thread responding to this question, someone mentioned SQL. That is a perfect example, and if you read the policy, you will find in the database domain, use of SQL requires no waivers, no exceptions, no nothing. On the other hand, where once ATLAS (and ATLAS variants) were the only usually the language considered for certain types of testing software, there has been a lot of work on developing a set of Ada packages (ABBET). Soon I imagine that ATLAS will be dropped from the approved list--once the needed tools are in place--since ABBET seems to be much more maintainable. > Using the wrong tool for a job is worse than having to maintain a > new tool. And using the wrong tool AND having to maintain it is the worst possible combination. If you can't understand that many of us have been there and had to do that, you are totally missing the point. We just went through this exercise recently. To reduce maintenance costs, we had to port a compiler written in a vendor specific variant of one obsolete language, which compiled a different vendor specific variant of an obsolete language, was hosted on an obsolete mainframe, and targeted an obsolete computer architecture. Maintenance costs on the mainframe were such that spending over a million dollars on the port would have been acceptable--I think the final cost was half that. But we still have (now) a special purpose front end for the gcc compiler, and a special assembler, and a special linker all to maintain for ONE project. That way lies madness. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...