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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,eb35be86b1c0bdcb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-13 15:43:06 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!216.218.236.179.MISMATCH!news!news.he.net!newspeer1.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!news.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <90lj4s$8h7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <918u24$8ms$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> Subject: Re: THAAD Study on Ada Viability X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:43:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.215.81.80 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 976750985 216.215.81.80 (Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:43:05 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:43:05 CST Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3103 Date: 2000-12-13T23:43:05+00:00 List-Id: "Singlespeeder" wrote in message news:918u24$8ms$1@neptunium.btinternet.com... : The point is though that the defense industry isn't going to upgrade the : development environment and move their development wholesale onto these : suites. Instead they'll stick with overstretched VAX/VMS machines, and an : environment that may have been hot in 1983 but doesn't cut it in the 21st : century - certainly not when trying to meet their 21st century timescales. I dunno... my company (Lockheed Martin Aero) is moving off of VAXen and onto other platforms as fast as possible (including legacy programs). We are also using far more IDEs and upper CASE tools than before. : If Ada is dead within the defense industry I believe that it's not the fault : of the language. Rather it's the fault of the IDE, and the unwillingness of : the buyers of defense products to move with the times. Ada has shown itself : to be capable of moving on, the decision makers in the Pentagon who mandated : not just the language but the toolset have not. To the extent that Ada is no longer being used in the defense industry, I'd say it was due to the issues originally raised in the NAS study a few years ago, and generally supported by the THAAD study. In particular, since (at least for the projects I support) the "decision makers in the Pentagon" have gotten out of the language/tool mandate (with a few interesting exceptions), it's hard to blame them for the use of obsolete systems!