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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, LOTS_OF_MONEY,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,df52cf364e9edc0a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-08 09:40:59 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!fsi-ssd!harryr From: harryr@ssd.fsi.com (Harry Rockefeller) Subject: Re: Is DoD simulation ignoring using Ada????? Sender: news@dev1.ssd.fsi.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: dag@control.lth.se's message of 07 Dec 1994 07:37:43 GMT Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:04:37 GMT Reply-To: harryr@ssd.fsi.com References: Organization: FlightSafety-SSD, Tulsa, OK, USA Date: 1994-12-08T15:04:37+00:00 List-Id: In article dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes: >>>>> "GA" == Gregory Aharonian 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