Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada?????

[harryr@ssd.fsi.com (Harry Rockefeller)]

In article <DAG.94Dec7083743@bellman.control.lth.se>
dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes:

   >>>>> "GA" == Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> writes:

   GA>      To what extent are DoD modelling and simulation efforts being
   GA> encouraged to do their work in Ada?  Based on general DoD behavior
   GA> in the past, probably not much, and based on studies of DoD
   GA> simulation publications, apparently not much.

   Neither should they.  For many (most?) simulation tasks there are
   higher level languages or frameworks that are much more effective than
   programming languages, such as, Ada, C, C++ or FORTRAN.

I may not understand this thread due to my limited experience.  I am
in charge of producing the Software Design Document (SDD) on a
multimillion dollar military sub-contract.  We are simulating an
aircraft by producing several Cockpit Procedures Trainers.

Back when the project began we were told we had to use Ada since it is
"full 2167A".  So, in a way, YES, we were (the project is almost over)
strongly encouraged to do our work in Ada.  However, the comments I
have received both from our prime and the military on the SDD, as well
as the comments and questions we got from them in the PDR and CDRs
tell me something different.  Either, our prime and the government
didn't have Ada qualified people to critique our software, or it
wasn't important to them.  We may rule out the possibility that our
design and Ada software coding was perfect. :-) This is my experience
on this one project.  I find it hard to believe that this may be a
common practice in the industry.  Maybe others can comment on this?
--
Harry Rockefeller  | We all have our opinions    | FlightSafety International
harryr@ssd.fsi.com | but Truth is not debatable. | Simulation Systems Division
(918) 251-0500     | Isaiah 55:6&9 the Bible     | Broken Arrow, OK 74012