AIA Position on Ada

AIA Position on Ada

[Ken Garlington]

I just received this; as far as I know, this is the final version which 
was presented to the NRC group reviewing Ada policy. I don't have any 
more information on the contents of this paper.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AIA Position Statement on Ada

12 July 1996

For Presentation to the National Research Council



The AIA.  The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is a trade 
association that represents most of the aerospace companies in the 
United States.  These companies are manufacturers of commercial, 
military, and business aircraft, helicopters, aircraft engines, 
missiles, spacecraft, and related equipment and components.

The National Research Council Study of Ada within DOD.  Earlier this 
year, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the 
National Research Council (NRC) formed a study group to review �the past 
and present contexts for using Ada within the Department of Defense 
(DOD).�  The NRC study group invited AIA to provide an industry position 
on Ada.  This document, AIA Position Statement on Ada, was developed in 
response to the NRC request.  It includes AIA recommendations, which are 
followed by a review of the basis for those recommendations.

AIA Recommendations

At a time when extraordinary steps are being taken to encourage 
commercial solutions and large-scale reuse, program management on both 
the government and industry sides should have more freedom to determine 
what best meets the life-cycle cost objectives of the project.  We 
advise the DOD to change its computer language policy now and end the 
exclusive mandate for Ada for all programs, including those for which 
the government maintains the software.

The AIA believes that a decision regarding which computer language or 
languages to use on a given DOD project is an implementation issue that 
should be based on a trade study.  The study, which should be conducted 
within the context of a specific project or a specific family of 
projects, should include considerations of performance-based 
specifications, interoperability, reuse of an existing system (if any), 
open systems, use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items, tool 
environment quality, cost and availability of tools, configuration 
management, and life-cycle considerations.  Such a study should be part 
of the requirements definition process; there should be no presumption 
in favor of any particular language.  The study could be conducted 
either prior to contract award or after the contract has been awarded.  
In either case, an integrated team including the developer (or potential 
developers), the supporters, the maintainers, and the testers all should 
advise on the language decision.  If the study were conducted prior to 
contract award, the study results could be included in the RFP.  The 
trade study should document the decision, the rationale, and the 
decision process, and should be retained in the government program 
office.

In a joint effort (lasting at most six months) DOD and industry should 
develop guidance on computer language trade studies.  An experienced, 
high-level, joint government and industry team of �stakeholders� (that 
is, parties who for many years have been in the business of developing, 
acquiring, or supporting DOD systems) should be tasked to develop this 
guidance.  This team, which should contain both systems and software 
expertise, should work to ensure that DOD life-cycle considerations are 
acknowledged and satisfied.  They should give consideration to how 
certain kinds of systems may merit special consideration; e.g., 
safety/flight critical systems, or systems where the size of the 
software exceeds a threshold.  Other factors include whether software is 
embedded, potential future modernizations, and interfaces with other 
systems and software.  The guidance should deal with the unfortunate 
fact that some managers on both the government and industry side may 
have insufficient knowledge of Ada capabilities; under pressure such 
people might ignore life-cycle concerns, or might turn away from 
essential up-front design analysis.  AIA believes that life-cycle cost 
studies and up-front design analysis should precede language selection.

AIA strongly supports the use of Ada in systems where its use makes both 
engineering and economic sense.  Our position that the exclusive mandate 
for Ada should end is not an attack on the value of Ada.  Indeed, we 
believe that Ada no longer needs a mandate in part because of the proven 
strengths of Ada 83 and the improvements that have been made in Ada 95.  
AIA believes that adopting the recommendations presented herein is an 
essential first step in moving toward a broad consensus position on 
computer languages within the defense industrial community, in 
appropriately responding to the thrust of the SECDEF memorandum 
regarding performance specifications and commercial standards, and in 
providing due consideration to reducing costs through the increased use 
of commercial products and practices.

In summary:

� Change the current DOD policy and end the exclusive Ada mandate.
 
� On DOD programs use a trade study to support computer language 
selections.
 
� To support this change of policy have a joint government and industry 
team develop guidance for computer language trade studies.
 
� Require the team developing guidance to ensure that there is a focus 
on life-cycle considerations in the trade study.



Basis for AIA Recommendations

The Importance of Software.  Software is a critical and increasingly 
significant factor in the systems and subsystems that are created by our 
member companies.  In many cases the software represents the integration 
technology for the system or subsystem as a whole.  For long-life weapon 
systems a software language is a long-enduring element.

The Merits of Ada.  The implementation of the Ada programming language 
within the DOD has been a significant factor in the way AIA companies 
deal with issues of large-scale software development and systems 
integration.  Ada 83 was designed to support sound software engineering, 
especially in large systems with a long life-cycle; noteworthy features 
of ADA 83 include strong typing and an inherent reliability based on 
extensive error detection at both compile-time and run-time.  Ada 95 
continues that tradition with increased support for potential software 
reuse and for object-oriented programming, and increased flexibility for 
real-time systems programming.  Additionally, Ada has an ability that is 
unique among high order languages (HOL) to be a design representation 
language; and it has been shown that in large systems the defect rate 
for Ada is significantly less than that for the more popular commercial 
HOLs.  We make these observations not to �damn with faint praise;� 
rather we wish to emphasize that Ada has significant technical merits.

The Limited Acceptance of Ada.  The acceptance of Ada has not been as 
widespread as its proponents have wished of it.  In the first place, Ada 
has only limited acceptance in the US commercial world.  There are many 
languages with a wider commercial acceptance than Ada, such as Basic, C, 
COBOL, and FORTRAN; and there are newer languages that are gaining in 
commercial popularity, such as C++ and Java.  In addition, Ada has some 
but only limited acceptance in the US academic world.  Most researchers 
in universities create small computer programs for which Ada has fewer 
advantages.  According to recent data from the DOD Ada Joint Program 
Office (AJPO), over 20% of colleges and universities offer courses on 
Ada.  Many Ada proponents believe that this percentage would be greater 
but for the lack of inexpensive Ada compilers and tools.  It remains to 
be seen whether the new availability of free Ada 95 compilers for a wide 
variety of platforms (including personal computers) and other promotion 
efforts will result in a greater use of Ada in the academic world and in 
commerce.  At the present time Ada continues to be encumbered by poor 
exposure in the US commercial world.

Ada and Development Costs.  Because of these acceptance issues, the 
development costs (as contrasted with life-cycle costs) associated with 
Ada become an issue that may impact competitiveness.  There is an 
ongoing cost to industry and to government software development groups 
for Ada training, since in many areas of the country the schools do not 
provide adequate courses.  The cost of industrial-strength Ada language 
compilers and other support tools is high relative to other languages 
that have a broader commercial base.  Availability issues may drive up 
development costs, also.  The use of commercial hardware platforms for 
embedded systems is increasing, and the frequency of performance 
enhancements in those platforms for both host and target systems has 
increased.  At the same time, because of the support for a commercial 
language environment by commercial hardware vendors, Ada support often 
lags.  This may result in less use of Ada, as commercial technology 
development supplants customized development.

AIA Experiences with Ada Vary.  AIA member companies have experienced a 
wide range of results from the use of Ada 83.  All have greatly 
benefited from the software engineering support features of Ada, 
including reduced error rates.  Many can cite projects in which Ada has 
had a substantial positive impact, overall.  Of special note in this 
regard are large, highly visible projects such as F-22, BSY-2, Boeing 
777, and Peace Shield.  However, some have suffered because Ada support 
tools were not robust nor available when needed, or because Ada 
presented interface difficulties in heterogeneous environments.

The Ada Mandate and Performance Standards.  Current policy in DOD on 
computer languages consists of an exclusive mandate for the use of Ada 
across the DOD.  Two years ago, on June 29, 1994, a SECDEF Memorandum, 
�Specifications and Standards - a New Way of Doing Business,� was 
issued.  This memorandum directs the use of performance standards, more 
reliance on commercial standards as a priority and greater dependence on 
the commercial industrial base.  On August 26, 1994, E. Paige and N. 
Longuemare issued a follow-on memorandum concerning the use of Ada, 
reiterating the DOD commitment to Ada, and noting that the Ada mandate 
does not conflict with the SECDEF Memorandum.  Most recently this was 
reiterated in the new 5000 series guidance.  Throughout DOD there is a 
need for more affordable weapon systems that use open architecture 
approaches to combat life-cycle cost growth during modernization.  In 
this context AIA believes that there still are open issues regarding Ada 
software and the desire to integrate the defense and commercial 
industrial base.

Acquisition Reform and Ada.  The DOD is moving toward permitting an 
increased reliance on commercial products, practices, and processes.  
Recently, acquisition reform initiatives have supported this trend; 
there is a general movement toward having government specifications 
focus on performance requirements - �what� is required from a system, as 
opposed to �how� to design or implement the system.  AIA supports these 
reforms and believes that usually the selection of a programming 
language is an implementation detail rather than a performance 
requirement.  As such the selection of a computer language should be 
based on both business judgment and engineering judgment prior to or 
during development, with no initial presumption in favor of any specific 
choice.  Frequently the choice has clear life-cycle implications, and so 
should be made with input from the support and maintenance organizations 
(if they are different from the developers).

Limiting the Number of Programming Languages.  AIA recognizes that DOD 
has an interest in not having to support systems in hundreds of 
different programming languages.  In the 1970s and 1980s it may have 
seemed necessary to mandate a single language to force a reduction in 
support costs.  In the 1990s and beyond, AIA believes that the 
commercial marketplace will of its own accord drive toward a relatively 
small number of commercially viable languages.  Going from hundreds of 
languages to several is virtually the same as going from hundreds to 
one, in terms of the benefit to the DOD.  In addition, we have many 
reports that the current waiver process, which is used in the attempt to 
enforce the single language policy, is costly and disruptive; a more 
open policy would reduce the cost and disruption.

Life-Cycle Cost Issues.  Certainly the DOD has an interest in 
encouraging its acquisition program managers to promote engineering 
solutions that address life-cycle issues.  These issues include 
life-cycle cost, supportability, maintainability, and adaptability, all 
of which were considerations in the design of Ada.  However, technology 
changes with time, and an equally important life-cycle consideration is 
the level of support for a language during that life-cycle.  In the US, 
Ada continues to be primarily a niche language for the DOD.  AIA 
believes that there is nothing wrong with efforts to promote Ada, to 
make Ada technology more easily available to faculty and students as 
well as to create a wider commercial base for Ada.  Only with wider 
commercial acceptance of Ada and its support and promotion by a major 
vendor (e.g., IBM, HP), is it likely that all the anticipated life-cycle 
savings will be achieved.  Ada should be maintained for systems when it 
makes business and technical sense.  At the same time we should provide 
for a transition to newer technologies that may have a greater impact on 
reducing life-cycle costs.

Fears from Eliminating and Fears from Keeping the Mandate.  Within both 
industry and government, there are some who believe that the exclusive 
mandate for Ada is essential if Ada is to build on its successes to date 
and continue to succeed in the future.  Such proponents may equate 
ending the exclusive mandate with �killing� Ada.  They fear that without 
such a mandate vendors may lessen their support for Ada products; also, 
they fear that without the mandate projects would not be forced to 
address software life-cycle cost issues.  Such concerns are not 
groundless; it is hard to predict the future with total confidence.  
However, we believe that the �doomsayers� are wrong.  Ada is too good a 
language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it 
die.  AIA member companies have made substantial investments in Ada 
technology, and have a clear appreciation of its value.  In the future 
as in the past, with or without a mandate, Ada will be a strong 
contender for large real-time systems that require ongoing maintenance 
and support (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program).  It may be a 
strong contender for other kinds of systems, as well.  The language has 
proven its value; after the recent improvements in Ada 95, the language 
is ready to stand on its own.  AIA has a concern that to continue the 
exclusive mandate for Ada could inhibit the use of commercial best 
practices, prevent dual-use applications, harm American competitiveness, 
and inhibit life-cycle benefits that could result from the judicious 
adoption of commercial products and practices.

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Alan Brain]

Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:

>However, we believe that the =B3doomsayers=B2 are wrong.  Ada is too good a 
>language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it 
>die.

Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable and 
costly VHS obsolete.

(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on maintenance. I 
also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got flooded, 
and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[bohn]

> >However, we believe that the doomsayers are wrong.  Ada is too good a 
> >language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it die.
> 
> Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable 
> and costly VHS obsolete.
> (I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on 
> maintenance. I also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after
> the house got flooded, and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works
> like new.)

Big deal. I've had one VHS for the last 11 years and serviced it once. If
you paid as much for you VHS recorders as you did for that Beta you might
you might have had one made to last. 

Also, it's pretty stupid to compare recorders to a programming language.

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Alan Brain]

bohn@rational.com wrote:
> 
> > >However, we believe that the doomsayers are wrong.  Ada is too good a
> > >language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it die.
> >
> > Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable
> > and costly VHS obsolete.

---->8------
 
> Also, it's pretty stupid to compare recorders to a programming language.

Wouldn't be the first time I've done something Thick, won't be the last.
But disagree: a reasonable analogy, showing that superior marketing, or
even
just availability of more titles sooner, has, in the past, beaten a
superior
technical solution. The situation vis-a-vis Ada should be obvious to any
Rational person.

----------------------      <> <>       How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx       Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM  By pulling
---------------------- o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo     oo  Maerklin
Wagons
                                                             In 1/220
Scale

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[David Weller]

In article <32266B97.3C8F@dynamite.com.au>,
Alan Brain  <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>But disagree: a reasonable analogy, showing that superior marketing, or
>even
>just availability of more titles sooner, has, in the past, beaten a
>superior
>technical solution. 

I seem to remember the biggest driving factor with VHS was the
appearance of the 6 hour mode.  This made it possible to put 3 2-hour
movies on a single tape, which at that time were expensive (and Beta
tapes, which could only store 4.5 hours at the most, cost a little
more).  This was pushed heavily by salespeople as I recall, because
consumers wanted to squeeze everything they could out of their dollar
(including the fact that, illegal or otherwise, buying recorded movies
back then was prohibitively expensive, and the ability to record 3
movies onto one tape was quite attractive as a storage device)

>The situation vis-a-vis Ada should be obvious to any
>Rational person.

Oh, sure, leave the other Ada compiler companies out of it! :-)

-- 
    Visit the Ada 95 Booch Components Homepage: www.ocsystems.com/booch
           This is not your father's Ada -- lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Stephen M O'Shaughnessy]

In article <321f0f6d.0@red.interact.net.au>, aebrain@dynamite.com.au says...
>
>Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:
>
>>However, we believe that the =B3doomsayers=B2 are wrong.  Ada is too good a 
>>language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it 
>>die.
>
>Agree. Look at the way the technically superior Betamax made the unreliable 
and 
>costly VHS obsolete.
>
>(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on 
maintenance. I 
>also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got 
flooded, 
>and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)
>
>
>
Beta died because Sony would not license the format.  Ada is free and will
live for ever.

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Bob Kitzberger]

: ...  Frequently the choice has clear life-cycle implications, and so 
: should be made with input from the support and maintenance organizations 
: (if they are different from the developers).

Do the support/maintenance organizations really have a say in this?
In my very limited experience on this topic, they seemed to be
involved when systems were delivered.

---

I suspect there may be a bit too much faith in the free market's
ability to choose the best technologies.  Has anyone seen the
incredible Ordnance Survey maps in the UK?  Care to compare those
to the commercial variety in the US?  Would the US DoD prefer
Ordnance Survey-quality maps or commercial US maps? 

[Not speaking for RSC, etc.]

--
Bob Kitzberger	      Rational Software Corporation       rlk@rational.com
http://www.rational.com http://www.rational.com/pst/products/testmate.html

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Alan Brain]

"Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:

>I don't know the background of the British Ordnance Survey maps, but it
>sounds as though they are made for (and possibly by) the British military.
>I take it these maps are easily available to the general public? Are other
>commercial maps (of presumably lower detail and quality) available to the
>British public, and if so, how many more are sold than Ordnance Survey
>maps?

The Ordnance Survey was commissioned as a set of Military Maps when it was 
discovered that had Napoleon invaded, there were no good maps for the British 
forces.

It's about as military as Ada, ie started out that way, but now the standard for the 
UK whenever you want any decent topographic map.

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Dale Stanbrough]

(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on
maintenance. I 
 also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got
flooded, 
 and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)
 

Ah.. So you were the one in that little corner of the video store! :-)

Dale

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Carl Bowman]

In article <4vrgvb$if7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
Dale Stanbrough  <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>(I've been through 3 VHS Recorders, and spent many hundred bucks on
>maintenance. I 
> also have a Betamax. It's had one service in 15 years - after the house got
>flooded, 
> and it was in 6 inches of water for a week. It works like new.)
> 
>
>Ah.. So you were the one in that little corner of the video store! :-)
>
>Dale

No, that was me!  I still have 4 Beta recorders which I use constantly.

- Carl Bowman
bowmanc@mnsinc.com

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[nasser]

How did a discussion about AIA position on Ada become one about
flooding, video stores and VHS vs. Betamax ?

I just love newsgroups !

:)

Nasser
--
Nasser Abbasi. C/C++/Ada Solaris. Perkin Elmer - Applied BioSystem division. 
email:  nasser@apldbio.com   MSEE, MSCS, MSCE, Fide chess master (FM).

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."   Bill Gates, 1981

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." 
Thomas Watson,  chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." 
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication."   Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Richard Riehle]

From: Richard Riehle
Subject: AIA Position on Ada


The AIA position is long on text and short on insight.  There is no
good reason for the DoD to abandon its current Ada policy.  It is
reminiscent of "sound and fury" but adds up to not much in substance.

 1) The single-language policy along with a set of properly administered
    waiver procedures is still correct.

 2) No one has yet made the case, nor can they make the case, that some
    class of software problems cannot be solved in Ada.  In fact, Ada
    has now been used successfully for nearly every kind of application,
    on nearly every operating system and and hardware platform in
    existence.

 3) The burden of proof should be on those who insist Ada cannot do the
    job, not the other way around.

 4) This is exactly the wrong time to abandon Ada policy. With the
    increasing disaffection with C++ and no other serious language
    (except, perhaps Eiffel) coming close to Ada, why would the DoD
    take such a major risk.

 5) "sound and fury," indeed!


  Richard Riehle

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Simon Johnston]

Ordnance survey maps are about the only ones available apart from some =
tourist maps. The quality of the maps and the availability of different =
scales (I have a large scale driving map of the UK, a selection of =
medium scale maps of areas I visit frequently and a couple of finer maps =
of places I like to go walking) has meant that rivals have not got a =
foothold in the market place.



with StandardDisclaimer; use StandardDisclaimer;
package Sig is
--,----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---.
--|Simon K. Johnston - Development Engineer (C++/Ada95) |ICL Retail =
Systems |
--|-----------------------------------------------------|3/4 Willoughby =
Road|
--|Unix Mail: skj@acm.org                               |Bracknell       =
   |
--|Telephone: +44 (0)1344 476320 Fax: +44 (0)1344 476302|Berkshire       =
   |
--|Internal : 7261 6320   OP Mail: S.K.Johnston@BRA0801 |RG12 8TJ        =
   |
--|WWW URL  : http://www.acm.org/~skj/                  |United Kingdom  =
   |
--`----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---'
end Sig;

----------
From:   Larry J. Elmore[SMTP:ljelmore@MONTANA.CAMPUS.MCI.NET]
Sent:   Monday, August 26, 1996 3:35 AM
To:     INFO-ADA@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU
Subject:        Re: AIA Position on Ada

Bob Kitzberger <rlk@rational.com> wrote in article
<4vq1n2$9o1@rational.rational.com>...

> I suspect there may be a bit too much faith in the free market's
> ability to choose the best technologies.  Has anyone seen the
> incredible Ordnance Survey maps in the UK?  Care to compare those
> to the commercial variety in the US?  Would the US DoD prefer
> Ordnance Survey-quality maps or commercial US maps?

I don't know the background of the British Ordnance Survey maps, but it
sounds as though they are made for (and possibly by) the British =
military.
I take it these maps are easily available to the general public? Are =
other
commercial maps (of presumably lower detail and quality) available to =
the
British public, and if so, how many more are sold than Ordnance Survey
maps?

Commercial maps are made for commercial purposes, and no extra expense =
is
going to be made providing higher levels of detail and quality than is
necessary to satisfy the majority of customers. Those that need better =
must
pay for it. The military has great need of the best maps possible. =
Whether
they get them through their own mapping service, or another government
agency dedicated to that task, or contract with a private company, they
will end up paying whatever price is necessary.

For the vast majority of us, that kind of detail and accuracy are just
plain unnecessary, so we're not about to pay for it. Why should we? So
mass-market commercial mapmakers provide us with  maps that are 'good
enough' and no more expensive than necessary.

Mapmaking is a proper domain of government, though, because it is
intimately related to national defense. Unless I'm mistaken, commercial
mapmakers depend upon government source maps, anyway, don't they?

Larry J. Elmore
ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net
"Anyone who isn't a socialist by the age of twenty doesn't have a heart.
 Anyone who isn't a conservative by the age of forty doesn't have a =
brain."
-- Winston Churchill

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93]

Brian Rogoff <rogoff@SCCM.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>Well, that little chestnut ("There's more C stuff out there...") can be
>expanded quite a bit
>
>(1) There is a larger existing base of C code than Ada code
>(2) There are more tools for C than for Ada
>(3) There are more programmers familiar with C than with Ada
>etc.
>
    No dispute with this. There are lots of expansions of my loosely
    used term: "stuff" and it clearly has to include things like
    experienced personnel, infrastructure, etc.

>I believe that what is going on is an example of positive feedback in a
>control system. Once a technology is a bit more popular than a competing
>technology, its popularity becomes the reason that people choose it over its
>competitors. Hence time to market is usually more important than quality,
>
    I like the "positive feedback" analogy - I think it explains a
    lot. I think the thing to remember is that this is not
    necessarily a bad thing. Businesses exist to make money, not
    promote a specific technology. Hence when the costs of a
    technology come down because of volume, there's less interest in
    it's technical merit and more in it's ability to get the job out
    the door at the minimal cost. In other words: Who cares if it
    makes the engineers "happy" or not? Does it make the stockholders
    money?

>important. Also, arguments like "VMS was better than UNIX" are plain wrong.
>The Symbolics Lisp machine environment circa 1985 was arguably better than
>any OS of the time, yet it didn't run on any other hardware. UNIX is
>portable, VMS isn't. Too fucking bad for VMS and Symbolics. Similar arguments
>can be made for the Mac (expensive, closed, yet functional and elegant)
>
    I'll disagree on this point: VMS is a better OS than UNIX and
    that's a fact. The Symbolics Lisp machine may have been better
    than VMS, but it doesn't change my original statement. The fact
    that VMS didn't catch on as well as UNIX is due to a lot of
    factors, not the least of which is that DEC made it so
    proprietary. But it still illustrates my point about how
    technological superiority isn't always (or often) necessary to
    becoming the dominant technology.

    BTW: If any of you guys at DEC, IBM, Apple, et alia, are
    listening, now's the time to PAY ATTENTION: _EVERY_ time you've
    decided to lock up your hardware or software as "Proprietary" and
    "Closed" with the hopes of "Cornering The Market", you eventually
    _LOOSE_!!! (You get 100% of an ever shrinking pie). Whenever you
    guys build a system that's "Open" so that other companies or
    individuals can play in the same game, you _WIN_!!! (You get X% of
    an ever expanding pie.) Does it take a rocket scientist to figure
    it out? (And if it did, well... we just so happen to have one
    handy. ;-)

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        407.796.8997
M/S 731-96                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Fax:        407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600                  Internet:   CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
    "That which belongs to another."

        --  Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink.
===============================================================================

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93]

"Byron B. Kauffman" <KauffmanBB@LMTAS.LMCO.COM> writes:
>Can anyone name a 'commercial standard' for software development? Should we use
>Microsoft's example of how commercial software is developed? I guess I
>shouldn't be
>suprised, given our company's 'official' stand, but it still bugs me...
>

    I believe there are some IEEE "standards" that relate to software
    development (I presume you're thinking of something that parallels
    Mil-Std-2167a?) But remember that a 'commercial standard' could
    mean something as simple as the documented development practices
    for your company. (All that ISO-9000, SEI-CMM type of stuff.)


>But on the brighter side, think of the money the company will be saving now by
>not having
>to spend all those hours coming up with excuses to justify an Ada waiver!!!
>
    I think it is truly a disgrace to see companies fight this thing.
    (STILL!) Ada has all the capabilities needed to write just about
    any kind of software you like and there are enough good quality
    compilers out there which are equal to or better than compilers
    for any other language. If the energy had been spent on building
    an "Ada Infrastructure" within a business (As we here at Pratt did
    years ago) instead of being spent on excuse-making and dodging the
    expressed desires of the customer, there would be no cause to
    argue that "Ada isn't as good as C because there's more C stuff
    out there..."

    BTW: The argument "there's more C stuff out there..." is the only
    semi-plausable business/engineering reason to think that "C is
    better than Ada...", in my not-so-humble opinion. In every other
    respect Ada is as good as or better than C and I have never heard
    any convincing engineering reason to select C over Ada.

    But then, this seems to be the way of things in a technological
    society. Beta was better than VHS - so VHS wins. VMS was better
    than UNIX, so UNIX wins. Macintosh was better than IBM-PC, so
    IBM-PC wins... etc. etc. etc.

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        407.796.8997
M/S 731-96                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Fax:        407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600                  Internet:   CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
    "That which belongs to another."

        --  Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink.
===============================================================================

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Brian Rogoff]

"Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93" <condicma@PWFL.COM> writes:

       BTW: The argument "there's more C stuff out there..." is the only
       semi-plausable business/engineering reason to think that "C is
       better than Ada...", in my not-so-humble opinion. In every other
       respect Ada is as good as or better than C and I have never heard
       any convincing engineering reason to select C over Ada.

Well, that little chestnut ("There's more C stuff out there...") can be 
expanded quite a bit

(1) There is a larger existing base of C code than Ada code
(2) There are more tools for C than for Ada
(3) There are more programmers familiar with C than with Ada
etc.

No need to reply that a lot of this C code is unusable, that the tools exist 
to correct deficiencies absent in Ada 95, etc. I agree. IMO, the way to fight 
this battle is to write lots of Ada code that is better than the C, to build 
Ada tools that do more for Ada than Purify and co. do for C (how about 
Larch/Ada-95 and a free GC for Ada 95?), and to get more people looking at 
Ada as a C alternative.

       But then, this seems to be the way of things in a technological
       society. Beta was better than VHS - so VHS wins. VMS was better
       than UNIX, so UNIX wins. Macintosh was better than IBM-PC, so
       IBM-PC wins... etc. etc. etc.

I believe that what is going on is an example of positive feedback in a 
control system. Once a technology is a bit more popular than a competing 
technology, its popularity becomes the reason that people choose it over its 
competitors. Hence time to market is usually more important than quality, 
and the type of market "conquered" (say PC vs workstation) is also 
important. Also, arguments like "VMS was better than UNIX" are plain wrong. 
The Symbolics Lisp machine environment circa 1985 was arguably better than 
any OS of the time, yet it didn't run on any other hardware. UNIX is 
portable, VMS isn't. Too fucking bad for VMS and Symbolics. Similar arguments 
can be made for the Mac (expensive, closed, yet functional and elegant).

I first read the "positive feedback" argument in an old (late 1980s, early 
1990s) Scientific American article titled "Positive Feedback in Economic 
Systems" or something like that. I don't believe that this argument applies 
perfectly to programming language acceptance however. Note that COBOL, 
Fortran, Lisp, and PL/I :-) still have active user communities.

-- Brian

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <ROGOFF.96Aug25115537@sccm.Stanford.EDU> rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff) writes:

  > I believe that what is going on is an example of positive feedback
  > in a control system. Once a technology is a bit more popular than
  > a competing technology, its popularity becomes the reason that
  > people choose it over its competitors. Hence time to market is
  > usually more important than quality, and the type of market
  > "conquered" (say PC vs workstation) is also important...  I first
  > read the "positive feedback" argument in an old (late 1980s, early
  > 1990s) Scientific American article titled "Positive Feedback in
  > Economic Systems" or something like that. I don't believe that
  > this argument applies perfectly to programming language acceptance
  > however. Note that COBOL, Fortran, Lisp, and PL/I :-) still have
  > active user communities.

    The positive feedback argument does apply to programming
languages, but there are two other factors which confound it.  First,
people are the slowest reacting component of the software system.  C
dominated the educational system in the eighties, and we are seeing
the effect of that now.  (Before that FORTRAN, then Pascal, dominated.
Yes, yes, Pascal is still and has been the "toy" language of choice in
CS1, but most CS and engineering programs qucikly shifted to C for
"real" work.  Now Ada is rising rapidly, and has the advantage that
you can use it both for CS1 and "real" projects.)

    The second confounding factor is that there is a critical mass
effect.  Once you pass a certain point, the size of the overall market
doesn't increase the advantages that a language has.  At a lower level
the market fragments.  Once usage and teaching of a language achieves
critical mass, then the "battle" goes almost house-to-house in
application domains.  Right now there are "home" territories
controlled by C, Ada, 4GLs, Fortran, Visual Basic, COBOL, Lisp,
Smalltalk, and SQL.

    One of the problems that the C++ community views with alarm is
that in the one territory they thought they owned, C++ is being
challenged by Java.  I don't expect either to survive the battle, but
maybe I'm an optimist. ;-) Java byte code on the other hand will
survive and prosper.  I just went to a presentation last week on a 4GL
product, where they demonstrated their Java byte code targeted
compiler.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

AIA Position on Ada

[Ken Garlington]

I just received this; as far as I know, this is the final version which 
was presented to the NRC group reviewing Ada policy. I don't have any 
more information on the contents of this paper.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AIA Position Statement on Ada

12 July 1996

For Presentation to the National Research Council



The AIA.  The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is a trade 
association that represents most of the aerospace companies in the 
United States.  These companies are manufacturers of commercial, 
military, and business aircraft, helicopters, aircraft engines, 
missiles, spacecraft, and related equipment and components.

The National Research Council Study of Ada within DOD.  Earlier this 
year, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the 
National Research Council (NRC) formed a study group to review �the past 
and present contexts for using Ada within the Department of Defense 
(DOD).�  The NRC study group invited AIA to provide an industry position 
on Ada.  This document, AIA Position Statement on Ada, was developed in 
response to the NRC request.  It includes AIA recommendations, which are 
followed by a review of the basis for those recommendations.

AIA Recommendations

At a time when extraordinary steps are being taken to encourage 
commercial solutions and large-scale reuse, program management on both 
the government and industry sides should have more freedom to determine 
what best meets the life-cycle cost objectives of the project.  We 
advise the DOD to change its computer language policy now and end the 
exclusive mandate for Ada for all programs, including those for which 
the government maintains the software.

The AIA believes that a decision regarding which computer language or 
languages to use on a given DOD project is an implementation issue that 
should be based on a trade study.  The study, which should be conducted 
within the context of a specific project or a specific family of 
projects, should include considerations of performance-based 
specifications, interoperability, reuse of an existing system (if any), 
open systems, use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items, tool 
environment quality, cost and availability of tools, configuration 
management, and life-cycle considerations.  Such a study should be part 
of the requirements definition process; there should be no presumption 
in favor of any particular language.  The study could be conducted 
either prior to contract award or after the contract has been awarded.  
In either case, an integrated team including the developer (or potential 
developers), the supporters, the maintainers, and the testers all should 
advise on the language decision.  If the study were conducted prior to 
contract award, the study results could be included in the RFP.  The 
trade study should document the decision, the rationale, and the 
decision process, and should be retained in the government program 
office.

In a joint effort (lasting at most six months) DOD and industry should 
develop guidance on computer language trade studies.  An experienced, 
high-level, joint government and industry team of �stakeholders� (that 
is, parties who for many years have been in the business of developing, 
acquiring, or supporting DOD systems) should be tasked to develop this 
guidance.  This team, which should contain both systems and software 
expertise, should work to ensure that DOD life-cycle considerations are 
acknowledged and satisfied.  They should give consideration to how 
certain kinds of systems may merit special consideration; e.g., 
safety/flight critical systems, or systems where the size of the 
software exceeds a threshold.  Other factors include whether software is 
embedded, potential future modernizations, and interfaces with other 
systems and software.  The guidance should deal with the unfortunate 
fact that some managers on both the government and industry side may 
have insufficient knowledge of Ada capabilities; under pressure such 
people might ignore life-cycle concerns, or might turn away from 
essential up-front design analysis.  AIA believes that life-cycle cost 
studies and up-front design analysis should precede language selection.

AIA strongly supports the use of Ada in systems where its use makes both 
engineering and economic sense.  Our position that the exclusive mandate 
for Ada should end is not an attack on the value of Ada.  Indeed, we 
believe that Ada no longer needs a mandate in part because of the proven 
strengths of Ada 83 and the improvements that have been made in Ada 95.  
AIA believes that adopting the recommendations presented herein is an 
essential first step in moving toward a broad consensus position on 
computer languages within the defense industrial community, in 
appropriately responding to the thrust of the SECDEF memorandum 
regarding performance specifications and commercial standards, and in 
providing due consideration to reducing costs through the increased use 
of commercial products and practices.

In summary:

� Change the current DOD policy and end the exclusive Ada mandate.
 
� On DOD programs use a trade study to support computer language 
selections.
 
� To support this change of policy have a joint government and industry 
team develop guidance for computer language trade studies.
 
� Require the team developing guidance to ensure that there is a focus 
on life-cycle considerations in the trade study.



Basis for AIA Recommendations

The Importance of Software.  Software is a critical and increasingly 
significant factor in the systems and subsystems that are created by our 
member companies.  In many cases the software represents the integration 
technology for the system or subsystem as a whole.  For long-life weapon 
systems a software language is a long-enduring element.

The Merits of Ada.  The implementation of the Ada programming language 
within the DOD has been a significant factor in the way AIA companies 
deal with issues of large-scale software development and systems 
integration.  Ada 83 was designed to support sound software engineering, 
especially in large systems with a long life-cycle; noteworthy features 
of ADA 83 include strong typing and an inherent reliability based on 
extensive error detection at both compile-time and run-time.  Ada 95 
continues that tradition with increased support for potential software 
reuse and for object-oriented programming, and increased flexibility for 
real-time systems programming.  Additionally, Ada has an ability that is 
unique among high order languages (HOL) to be a design representation 
language; and it has been shown that in large systems the defect rate 
for Ada is significantly less than that for the more popular commercial 
HOLs.  We make these observations not to �damn with faint praise;� 
rather we wish to emphasize that Ada has significant technical merits.

The Limited Acceptance of Ada.  The acceptance of Ada has not been as 
widespread as its proponents have wished of it.  In the first place, Ada 
has only limited acceptance in the US commercial world.  There are many 
languages with a wider commercial acceptance than Ada, such as Basic, C, 
COBOL, and FORTRAN; and there are newer languages that are gaining in 
commercial popularity, such as C++ and Java.  In addition, Ada has some 
but only limited acceptance in the US academic world.  Most researchers 
in universities create small computer programs for which Ada has fewer 
advantages.  According to recent data from the DOD Ada Joint Program 
Office (AJPO), over 20% of colleges and universities offer courses on 
Ada.  Many Ada proponents believe that this percentage would be greater 
but for the lack of inexpensive Ada compilers and tools.  It remains to 
be seen whether the new availability of free Ada 95 compilers for a wide 
variety of platforms (including personal computers) and other promotion 
efforts will result in a greater use of Ada in the academic world and in 
commerce.  At the present time Ada continues to be encumbered by poor 
exposure in the US commercial world.

Ada and Development Costs.  Because of these acceptance issues, the 
development costs (as contrasted with life-cycle costs) associated with 
Ada become an issue that may impact competitiveness.  There is an 
ongoing cost to industry and to government software development groups 
for Ada training, since in many areas of the country the schools do not 
provide adequate courses.  The cost of industrial-strength Ada language 
compilers and other support tools is high relative to other languages 
that have a broader commercial base.  Availability issues may drive up 
development costs, also.  The use of commercial hardware platforms for 
embedded systems is increasing, and the frequency of performance 
enhancements in those platforms for both host and target systems has 
increased.  At the same time, because of the support for a commercial 
language environment by commercial hardware vendors, Ada support often 
lags.  This may result in less use of Ada, as commercial technology 
development supplants customized development.

AIA Experiences with Ada Vary.  AIA member companies have experienced a 
wide range of results from the use of Ada 83.  All have greatly 
benefited from the software engineering support features of Ada, 
including reduced error rates.  Many can cite projects in which Ada has 
had a substantial positive impact, overall.  Of special note in this 
regard are large, highly visible projects such as F-22, BSY-2, Boeing 
777, and Peace Shield.  However, some have suffered because Ada support 
tools were not robust nor available when needed, or because Ada 
presented interface difficulties in heterogeneous environments.

The Ada Mandate and Performance Standards.  Current policy in DOD on 
computer languages consists of an exclusive mandate for the use of Ada 
across the DOD.  Two years ago, on June 29, 1994, a SECDEF Memorandum, 
�Specifications and Standards - a New Way of Doing Business,� was 
issued.  This memorandum directs the use of performance standards, more 
reliance on commercial standards as a priority and greater dependence on 
the commercial industrial base.  On August 26, 1994, E. Paige and N. 
Longuemare issued a follow-on memorandum concerning the use of Ada, 
reiterating the DOD commitment to Ada, and noting that the Ada mandate 
does not conflict with the SECDEF Memorandum.  Most recently this was 
reiterated in the new 5000 series guidance.  Throughout DOD there is a 
need for more affordable weapon systems that use open architecture 
approaches to combat life-cycle cost growth during modernization.  In 
this context AIA believes that there still are open issues regarding Ada 
software and the desire to integrate the defense and commercial 
industrial base.

Acquisition Reform and Ada.  The DOD is moving toward permitting an 
increased reliance on commercial products, practices, and processes.  
Recently, acquisition reform initiatives have supported this trend; 
there is a general movement toward having government specifications 
focus on performance requirements - �what� is required from a system, as 
opposed to �how� to design or implement the system.  AIA supports these 
reforms and believes that usually the selection of a programming 
language is an implementation detail rather than a performance 
requirement.  As such the selection of a computer language should be 
based on both business judgment and engineering judgment prior to or 
during development, with no initial presumption in favor of any specific 
choice.  Frequently the choice has clear life-cycle implications, and so 
should be made with input from the support and maintenance organizations 
(if they are different from the developers).

Limiting the Number of Programming Languages.  AIA recognizes that DOD 
has an interest in not having to support systems in hundreds of 
different programming languages.  In the 1970s and 1980s it may have 
seemed necessary to mandate a single language to force a reduction in 
support costs.  In the 1990s and beyond, AIA believes that the 
commercial marketplace will of its own accord drive toward a relatively 
small number of commercially viable languages.  Going from hundreds of 
languages to several is virtually the same as going from hundreds to 
one, in terms of the benefit to the DOD.  In addition, we have many 
reports that the current waiver process, which is used in the attempt to 
enforce the single language policy, is costly and disruptive; a more 
open policy would reduce the cost and disruption.

Life-Cycle Cost Issues.  Certainly the DOD has an interest in 
encouraging its acquisition program managers to promote engineering 
solutions that address life-cycle issues.  These issues include 
life-cycle cost, supportability, maintainability, and adaptability, all 
of which were considerations in the design of Ada.  However, technology 
changes with time, and an equally important life-cycle consideration is 
the level of support for a language during that life-cycle.  In the US, 
Ada continues to be primarily a niche language for the DOD.  AIA 
believes that there is nothing wrong with efforts to promote Ada, to 
make Ada technology more easily available to faculty and students as 
well as to create a wider commercial base for Ada.  Only with wider 
commercial acceptance of Ada and its support and promotion by a major 
vendor (e.g., IBM, HP), is it likely that all the anticipated life-cycle 
savings will be achieved.  Ada should be maintained for systems when it 
makes business and technical sense.  At the same time we should provide 
for a transition to newer technologies that may have a greater impact on 
reducing life-cycle costs.

Fears from Eliminating and Fears from Keeping the Mandate.  Within both 
industry and government, there are some who believe that the exclusive 
mandate for Ada is essential if Ada is to build on its successes to date 
and continue to succeed in the future.  Such proponents may equate 
ending the exclusive mandate with �killing� Ada.  They fear that without 
such a mandate vendors may lessen their support for Ada products; also, 
they fear that without the mandate projects would not be forced to 
address software life-cycle cost issues.  Such concerns are not 
groundless; it is hard to predict the future with total confidence.  
However, we believe that the �doomsayers� are wrong.  Ada is too good a 
language for large embedded systems; the marketplace would not let it 
die.  AIA member companies have made substantial investments in Ada 
technology, and have a clear appreciation of its value.  In the future 
as in the past, with or without a mandate, Ada will be a strong 
contender for large real-time systems that require ongoing maintenance 
and support (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program).  It may be a 
strong contender for other kinds of systems, as well.  The language has 
proven its value; after the recent improvements in Ada 95, the language 
is ready to stand on its own.  AIA has a concern that to continue the 
exclusive mandate for Ada could inhibit the use of commercial best 
practices, prevent dual-use applications, harm American competitiveness, 
and inhibit life-cycle benefits that could result from the judicious 
adoption of commercial products and practices.

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Byron B. Kauffman]

Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> I just received this; as far as I know, this is the final version which
> was presented to the NRC group reviewing Ada policy. I don't have any
> more information on the contents of this paper.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> AIA Position Statement on Ada
> 
> 12 July 1996
> 
> For Presentation to the National Research Council
>

snip...

> The Ada Mandate and Performance Standards.  Current policy in DOD on
> computer languages consists of an exclusive mandate for the use of Ada
> across the DOD.  Two years ago, on June 29, 1994, a SECDEF Memorandum,
> �Specifications and Standards - a New Way of Doing Business,� was
> issued.  This memorandum directs the use of performance standards, more
> reliance on commercial standards as a priority and greater dependence on
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the commercial industrial base.  

more snipping...

Can anyone name a 'commercial standard' for software development? Should we use
Microsoft's example of how commercial software is developed? I guess I shouldn't be
suprised, given our company's 'official' stand, but it still bugs me...

But on the brighter side, think of the money the company will be saving now by not having
to spend all those hours coming up with excuses to justify an Ada waiver!!!

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[nasser]

If DOD will not be using Ada, who will ?

An agent told me the other day that he knows of
only about 12 commerical companies in the US that
uses Ada for commerical software, everything else
is defense releated.

May be with this AIA recommendation, in few years one
will count on one hand the number of people 
programming in Ada, becuase every one else will
be busy fixing bugs in all the new C and C++ code
that will now be written instead of Ada.

this is just great. more jobs for programmers who
like running after wild pointers and debugging 
core dumps .

Please let me know where will be the first aircraft
whose control system was coded in C/C++ flying to, so 
that I know where to run and hide :)

And I am going now to go buy more stocks in MircoSoft :)

Nasser
--
Nasser Abbasi. C/C++/Ada Solaris. Perkin Elmer - Applied BioSystem division. 
email:  nasser@apldbio.com   MSEE, MSCS, MSCE, Fide chess master (FM).

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."   Bill Gates, 1981

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." 
Thomas Watson,  chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." 
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication."   Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Robert Dewar]

"If DOD will not be using Ada, who will ?"

Well the predicate is clearly false. Even if DoD did not use Ada for
one new project (which in fact is also false, Ada will be used for
many new projects), it has huge amounts of Ada code that will be
maintained for a long time (Ada is the most widely used programming
language in DoD weapons systems, and the second most widely used
langauge (after COBOL) for information systems.

YOu cannot expect an agent to be aware of all the commercial companies
using Ada. The number is probably not large, but it is much larger than
12 (almost anyone familair with the Ada scene can name more than 12
companies using Ada for non-defence work from their own knowledge!)

Re: AIA Position on Ada

[Robert B. Love]

In <321E0811.B9D@lmtas.lmco.com> "Byron B. Kauffman" wrote:

> But on the brighter side, think of the money the company will be 
saving now 
> by not having to spend all those hours coming up with excuses to 
justify an 
> Ada waiver!!!

Yeah, but what about a trade study to determine which language to use?
How many manhours will this be?  Or will it just be a xerox of the last
trade study that concluded what the authors want?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Love, rlove@neosoft.com (local)        MIME & NeXT Mail OK
rlove@raptor.rmnug.org  (permanent)        PGP key available
----------------------------------------------------------------