Re: In Defense of the Mandate

[world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian)]

>	I claim that an arbitrary embedded system (J) written in Ada is
>(on average) easier for an independent programming team to understand and
>subsequently enhance than one written in any previous language.  Thus,
>it is easier for independent programming teams to create variants of that 
>system (J', J'', J'''.....) than it would be if J were written in some older
>language.  That capability is needed if we have to fight protracted conflicts 
>like World War II, Korea, or VietNam.

Unfortunately, a growing number of real soldiers disagree with you, and
are using C/C++.  For example, there was that Army group involved with
JINTACCS that developed a fielded communications system in C++ using Motif.
Or people trhoughout the Air Force using C++ for database development.
And if you saw Ralph Craft's comment in Government Computer News, you
will understand that this use of C/C++ is common by people in the Armed
Services.

What is hurt Ada is that the DoD has refused to fund a truly honest
assessment of the microeconomics of defense software development vis-a-vis
Ada and C/C++.  The old Mosemann critiques were a joke, the new ones
probably not that much better, and people will continue to make decisions
based on meaningless data.

Also, given Bosnia, the protracted conflicts arguments is kind of moot.

Greg Aharonian

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