Office Naval Research seemingly not interested in Ada

Office Naval Research seemingly not interested in Ada

[Gregory Aharonian]

   I recently came across an ONR report on a "Workshop in Experimental
Computer Science" held in Palo Alto in Ocotober 1991.  ONR sponsored the
workshop, with the help of ARPA and the NSF. The report I read was 49
pages, and covered an equal mix of state of the art research in hardware
design and software design.

   Nowhere did I see Ada mentioned in the proceedings.  Nowhere.  Given
the nature of the workshop, and the central role of Ada in all future
DoD software efforts, the ONR should have insured that Ada was discussed
in the context of the workshop.  It wasn't because they didn't.
   Interestingly, there was 5 representatives from the computer science
efforts at Carnegie Mellon University (where much advanced software and
hardware is done), and none from their 'buddies' across the street at
the Software Engineering Institute.  Why SEI has never been able to work
with CMU is a tragedy - imagine if MACH was being developed in Ada.
(I guess the hostility gossip must be true.)
   Anyways, the ONR dropped the ball here on promoting Ada with its own
money, and apparently with Pentagon approval - more of the "don't ask -
don't tell" toleration of Mandate violations.
   Two DoD people participated - Gary Koob at the NRL (koob@itd.nrl.navy.mil)
and Stephen Squires at DARPA (squires@darpa.mil).  You might want to email
these guys and find out what's up.
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Office Naval Research seemingly not interested in Ada

[iris.mbvlab.wpafb.af.mil!blackbird.afit.af.mil!news.usafa.af.mil!kirk!cwa]

I have the proceedings from another ONR workshop, the Third Annual Workshop
Foundations of Real-Time Computing...  While I cannot say that Ada was not
mentioned (it was mentioned on at least one page of the proceedings), it
certainly wasn't prominent.  So what???

Look at it from this perspective:  Here is some "stats" gleaned from the
proceedings...
    Languages prominently discussed:  FLEX
    Machines prominently discussed:   HARTS, SMART caches
    Operating Systems prominently discussed:  HARTS/OS, Spring

Are any of these used outside of the research community?

    Languages mentioned on at least one page:  Ada, C, ...

The vast majority of the proceedings discussed algorithms, theories,
methods and techniques applicable regardless of language or system.  Most
of these discussions don't bother to mention something as unimportant as
which language was used in implementations.

Bottom line:  ONR/ARPA/DoD labs engage in research -- personal preference
is as good a criteria as any for language selection in many research
projects.  Who cares?  The result of the research independent of these
"details" is the important part.

I would be extremely unhappy to hear that the F-22 was coded primarily
in C.  I could care less what some researcher at MIT used on an
ONR project.

Opinions my own.
-- 
Christopher A. Warack, Capt, USAF
Computer Science Department, US Air Force Academy

cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil                (719) 472-2401

Re: Office Naval Research seemingly not interested in Ada

[Gregory Aharonian]

>Bottom line:  ONR/ARPA/DoD labs engage in research -- personal preference
>is as good a criteria as any for language selection in many research
>projects.  Who cares?  The result of the research independent of these
>"details" is the important part.

No! No! No!  The Ada Mandate applies to all DoD software activities,
INCLUDING RESEARCH.  A stupid application of the Mandate, but the Mandate
is a law of the land.  Personal preference is irrelevant, under the current
terms of the Mandate.  If you want a more realistic approach, as advocated
by Admiral Tuttle, fine, have Congress pass a new version of the Mandate
with all of these exceptions explicitly worded.

But until then, any DoD software research not done in Ada (for any reason
other than cost-effectiveness which only occasionally is true) is a 
violation of a federal law.  This makes the DoD the largest criminal
(in the misdemeanor sense) organization in the country, based on current
non-Ada use.

It amazes me the number of uniform-types inside the DoD who have no idea
that the Mandate applies to everything, including research and MIS stuff.
I am constantly getting private email from uniform-types 'correcting' me
on this issue.  An educational campaign is needed real soon.
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Office Naval Research seemingly not interested in Ada

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!udecc]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Jul27202554@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregor
y Aharonian) writes:
|> >Bottom line:  ONR/ARPA/DoD labs engage in research -- personal preference
|> >is as good a criteria as any for language selection in many research
|> >projects.  Who cares?  The result of the research independent of these
|> >"details" is the important part.
|> 
|> No! No! No!  The Ada Mandate applies to all DoD software activities,
                                                            ^----------
|> INCLUDING RESEARCH.  A stupid application of the Mandate, but the Mandate
|> is a law of the land.  Personal preference is irrelevant, under the current
|> terms of the Mandate.  If you want a more realistic approach, as advocated
|> by Admiral Tuttle, fine, have Congress pass a new version of the Mandate
|> with all of these exceptions explicitly worded.

Is the word in the law really activities or something else?  (What's an
activity?)  If it says "development" or "acquisition" or is tied to certain
kinds of money, then perhaps the basic research guys are off scott free.
But, >>I<< personally (US citizen - no ad hominem attacks on uniform types
necessary) don't care what languages a researcher uses when language-related
issues aren't part of the research.  The product of research is the idea not
some software product.

|> But until then, any DoD software research not done in Ada (for any reason
|> other than cost-effectiveness which only occasionally is true) is a 
|> violation of a federal law.  This makes the DoD the largest criminal
|> (in the misdemeanor sense) organization in the country, based on current
|> non-Ada use.

You seem pretty sure of this, so why not press charges or sue...

|> It amazes me the number of uniform-types inside the DoD who have no idea
|> that the Mandate applies to everything, including research and MIS stuff.
|> I am constantly getting private email from uniform-types 'correcting' me
|> on this issue.  An educational campaign is needed real soon.

I'd rather spend the money on research...  (Note that MIS stuff is not
excluded by any other wording of the mandate as discussed above).

-- 
Christopher A. Warack, Capt, USAF
Computer Science Department, US Air Force Academy

cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil                (719) 472-2401

Re: Office Naval Research seemingly not interested in Ada

[Gene Ouye]

Chris Warack <sys mgr> (cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil) wrote:
: In article <SRCTRAN.93Jul27202554@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Greg
ory Aharonian) writes:
: |> No! No! No!  The Ada Mandate applies to all DoD software activities,
:                                                             ^----------

: Is the word in the law really activities or something else?  (What's an
: activity?)  If it says "development" or "acquisition" or is tied to certain
: kinds of money, then perhaps the basic research guys are off scott free.

The exact wording of the law is:

	"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1,
	 1991, all Department of Defense software shall be written
	 in the programming language Ada, in the absence of special
	 exemption by an official designated by the Secretary of
	 Defense."

The last I heard, "all" meant all.  I guess technically Greg is wrong
because it doesn't say "software activities", it just says _all_  DoD
software _shall_ be written in Ada (notwithstanding blah, blah, blah,
and in the absence of special exemption, blah, blah, blah).

Gene Ouye (geneo@rational.com)
(301) 897-4014

Re: Office Naval Research seemingly not interested in Ada

[cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland]

In article <1993Jul28.171831.14735@rational.com> geneo@Rational.COM (Gene Ouye)
 writes:
   The exact wording of the law is:

           "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1,
            1991, all Department of Defense software shall be written
            in the programming language Ada, in the absence of special
            exemption by an official designated by the Secretary of
            Defense."

   The last I heard, "all" meant all.  I guess technically Greg is wrong
   because it doesn't say "software activities", it just says _all_  DoD
   software _shall_ be written in Ada (notwithstanding blah, blah, blah,
   and in the absence of special exemption, blah, blah, blah).

Then the question moves from the definition of "software activities"
to the definition of DoD software.  Is research done with DoD money
DoD software?  Arcadia is an ARPA project -- we have software in Ada,
C, C++, LISP, APPL/A, HyperTalk, ...  I don't remember seeing any
waivers...
        /s
--
Alexander Erskine Wise /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Software Development Laboratory
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ WISE@CS.UMASS.EDU /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\ This situation calls for large amounts of unadulterated CHOCOLATE! /\/\/\