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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-03 11:40:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? One silly idea.. Date: 3 Jan 2003 11:40:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3E147D79.2070703@cogeco.ca> <80F453381B124BF8.ACEC58777658C8DC.89DCAA63449DBB7B@lp.airnews.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.219.89.90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1041622811 1610 127.0.0.1 (3 Jan 2003 19:40:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jan 2003 19:40:11 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32502 Date: 2003-01-03T19:40:11+00:00 List-Id: "John R. Strohm" wrote in message news:<80F453381B124BF8.ACEC58777658C8DC.89DCAA63449DBB7B@lp.airnews.net>... > "Kevin Cline" wrote in message > news:ba162549.0301030124.237c7a7e@posting.google.com... > > Not all the antipathy to Ada is irrational. Most of it comes > > from sad experience. Mine was trying to use Ada-83 to write Unix > > applications with a Motif UI. Regardless of any superiority in > > reliability, the scarcity of libraries and trained > > programmers makes Ada too expensive for most commercial software > > projects. > > In the very early 1980s, General Dynamics / Fort Worth Division started the > F-16C/D program. This was a MAJOR upgrade of the airplane, involving, among > other things, all new computers and all new software. > > Ada wasn't there yet, so they chose JOVIAL J73. > > At that time, there existed precisely one J73 compiler, and it didn't target > EITHER of the processors they were designing into the airplane (Zilog Z8002 > and MIL-STD-1750A). They wound up having to let compiler development > contracts to two (small) companies to develop toolsets. > > At that time, trained J73 programmers just plain didn't exist. GD/FW had to > train every single programmer they hired for that project. > > Every time I hear someone grumbling about the scarcity of trained Ada > programmers, I think about F-16C/D and JOVIAL, and I wonder how GD/FW ever > managed to get that airplane off the ground, if training is so hard. > > I'm not even going to mention HAL/S, the Space Shuttle language, which to my > (unclassified) knowledge was not used for anything else on the planet. > Where does NASA (and the SEI Level 5 contractor) get trained HAL/S > programmers? I said "commercial software projects" -- i.e. projects undertaken in the hope of making a profit, that have to be compatible with a large base of existing software and systems, and that have to be delivered within a few months of initiation. In other words, about 99% of the software work in the world. Ada is a poor fit for these projects, and is therefore unpopular. The projects you mentioned are taxpayer-supported with software budgets in the billions and initial delivery some years after project start. NASA spends about $500 for every line of shuttle code changed. With that kind of budget and timeline training costs can be absorbed. Most projects can't afford it.