Re: Leffler's Lies: A biased critique of a general

[srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)]

>Saddest was his statement: "You don't see any financial
>communities in the business world using (Ada).  It's not out in the
>commercial venture any place that I'm aware of."

>I wonder how the esteemed general got his stars? It certainly
>doesn't look like he got promoted on being well-informed.  (Yeah,
>yeah, I'll probably be flamed for ad hominem attacks, but I'm 
>really getting FED UP with people making ill-informed decisions.

In the absolute sense, the general is obviously wrong.  In any
application field you can think of, people are using Ada.  However
in the relative sense, he is probably right.  Outside of the mandated
world, Ada use is less than 5% of all total software development.
I do not have exact figures, and unfortunately the Pentagon got ripped
off by the Mosemann study consultants, who prepared a totally inaccurate
survey of Ada and C/C++ use in all sectors of the economy.

The fact is that most statements about Ada outside the mandated world
are impossible to prove true or false, as the data does not exist. And
most economic statements made about Ada in the mandated world are also
nearly impossible to prove true or false, because as the GAO pointed out
many years ago and still unresolved, is that no one is collecting the
data to make such assessments.

>Why do people still accept 1985-based arguments for NOT using Ada?

Wrong question.  It should be "not SUPPORTING Ada?".  Ever wonder why
there are few entrepreneurs associated with Ada, why other than for a
few defense contractors and Ada vendors, there are few companies able
to sustain a marketing campaign for Ada tools and libraries?  Because
starting an Ada business is a good way to loose money, while starting
a C/C++ business is a good way to make money.  Who the hell is dumb
enough to start an Ada business under these conditions?  I invested
a lot of time and my own money building a large database of information
on all of the reusable software available from all of the government
agencies, in particular the DoD.  I went to a few Tri-Ada conferences,
even exhibited, and all I got was a slap in the face.  No business from
any contractors, no attention from any DoD offices.  I even published
a column in a Defense journal monthly reviewing freely available defense
software (talk about reuse advocacy) and nothing.  I learned my lesson
and moved to other software arenas.  Multiply my experiences many times
over, and you'll start to understand why few voluntarily support the
Ada industry.  Between archiac DoD procurement regulations that discourage
reuse (long ago identified but still on the books) and contractors too
scared to take a chance in acquiring reusable software, the results are
a stillborn Ada support business.

About the General, hey at least he mentioned Ada in an interview.  It still
is outrageous (but at least he's gone) that Strassman never mentioned Ada
in any of the interviews in the mainstream computer industry.  When everyone
else dropped the ball, it was his duty to set the example.  He didn't,
no one doesn't, IBM still sabotages Ada by not including it in AD/CYCLE and
AD/Platform, and Ada goes no where.

Start focussing you ire at inept DoD software initiatives and policies.
Leave the poor general alone.  Instead write letters to your congressman
asking why none of the truly inonvative software supposedly being
developed by the STARS program is never exhibited at commercial CASE
conferences and trade shows?

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178