why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[rob]

Air defense moving to C++ from Ada? are they crazy? with
all the evidence that Ada is safer and more reliable than any C variation
based language, who would make such a decision? Our tax payers money
is being wasted here. What a waste. Is this supposed to make our defense
software better?  

http://www.dice.com/DandL/l/lckmtncx.63005.html

"Experience in
development of large systems using C++ is desired. The project is
making a transition from Ada to C++, so candidate would utilize
knowledge of C++, to mentor other team members who have more of an Ada
background. Knowledge of Ada and Army Air Defense system is a plus.
Typical Minimum Education
BS/BA
Typical Minimum Experience
5

Business Unit: MISSILES AND SPACE OPERATIONS
Business Area: SPACE SYSTEMS COMPANY"

Rob

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[David Emery]

In article <9pnumq02o3u@drn.newsguy.com>, <rob@NOTHERE> wrote:

> Air defense moving to C++ from Ada? are they crazy? with
> all the evidence that Ada is safer and more reliable than any C variation
> based language, who would make such a decision? Our tax payers money
> is being wasted here. What a waste. Is this supposed to make our defense
> software better?  

One of the most common reasons I hear for contractors moving from Ada is
that they can't find Ada programmers.  My own hypothesis is that they're
not willing to pay enough.  Anecdotally, I know a lot of Ada people that
make -much more- money doing C (because they're generally substantially
better than their peers who have only C experience.)  Of course, though,
if they do not advertise for Ada programmers, they are unlikely to get
any :-(

But in general language/sw technology decisions are not based on any
particular engineering analysis, but rather business case and
perceptions of what the customer wants to hear and what the managers
believe will be most profitable/least cost.  At the risk of raising
old ghosts, DoD is guilty, in my view, for not performing the full
life-cycle analysis that was possible about 7 or 8 years ago, when Mr.
Emmett Paige held his "Ada Dual-Use Symposia".  I said then, and I still
believe, that the DoD has sufficient data to determine if Ada does 
provide life cycle (or even purely development) cost savings.  The
only study I saw on Ada maintenance (done in 1990 with preliminary
data from a few programs) said that Ada costs were _LINEAR_ on SLOC
counts.  COCOMO shows the cost to be _EXPONENTIAL_ for other languages.

               dave

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Jim44.]

In article <061020011935502631%demery@cox.rr.com>, David says...
 
>
>One of the most common reasons I hear for contractors moving from Ada is
>that they can't find Ada programmers.  

They are probably not trying hard enough. 

But this notion of asking for an 'X' programmer, is really funny. It is 
like a taxi company asking for drivers who know how to drive a buick only. 
As if someone who has been driving a cadilac or any other car could 
not learn how to drive a buick. 

So, those C++ programmers they are asking to hire (to teach Ada how to
convert the code to C++ :), could not themselves learn to program in Ada?
 
>My own hypothesis is that they're
>not willing to pay enough. 

Actually Ada pays the least of all the programming languages I know about. 
I look at job wanted ads for programmers, and Ada rates and salaries are
always the lowest (never understood wht that is).  So, in a away, asking 
for a C++ programmers will actually cost more in terms of salaries (C++ 
will not accept the low salaries of Ada programmers), and it also cost 
more in terms of software defects. 

Is anyone in the defense department awake anymore? How could such a 
waste of tax payers money go on and no one does anything about it?



 

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[tmoran]

>One of the most common reasons I hear for contractors moving from Ada is
  It would surely help if Ada programming wasn't all located in less
desirable locales.
<gd&r> from beautiful Silicon Valley, where the weather is great, but
Ada programmers have a *very* low profile. ;)

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Brian Rogoff]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> >One of the most common reasons I hear for contractors moving from Ada is
>   It would surely help if Ada programming wasn't all located in less
> desirable locales.

I agree very strongly with this sentiment, and the other one which pointed
out the lower pay scales for Ada. It would be great to find Ada projects
but there just don't seem to be any in Silicon Valley, and the few I've
seen have salaries at the very low end.

> <gd&r> from beautiful Silicon Valley, where the weather is great, but

You forgot to mention that the traffic problems have all but vanished too.
101 is now a speed limit, not the number of minutes it takes to travel 10
miles :-).

> Ada programmers have a *very* low profile. ;)

Indeed. And all of this talk of switching to C++ for weapons systems is
scary. I guess we can be thankful that the DOD hasn't switched to Perl,
yet...

-- Brian

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[James Rogers]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> Indeed. And all of this talk of switching to C++ for weapons systems is
> scary. I guess we can be thankful that the DOD hasn't switched to Perl,
> yet...

Not Perl, but there has been movement toward Java.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

(One of those less desirable locales, and let's keep it that way.)

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Dale Stanbrough]

James Rogers wrote:

> Not Perl, but there has been movement toward Java.


About 3 years ago the Australian Ministry of Defence said they were
moving away from Ada to Java. Perhaps a long sighted view, but at
the time it was a total joke, given the primitive nature of the
Java tools/implementations back then.

Dale

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Preben Randhol]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 22:00:22 GMT, James Rogers wrote:
> Brian Rogoff wrote:
>> 
>> Indeed. And all of this talk of switching to C++ for weapons systems is
>> scary. I guess we can be thankful that the DOD hasn't switched to Perl,
>> yet...
> 
> Not Perl, but there has been movement toward Java.

Oh? Not VB either? Do they want to shot missiles from a web page using
IE on their nice Windows NT run ships? ;-)

Preben

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Marin David Condic]

Sillycon Valley has lots of reasons to be viewed as unattractive - why all
the high-tech, software intensive firms want to be there I do not know. If
software can be built anywhere, then why does it all have to center in a
place where property values are astronomical and traffic is horrible - with
wages needing to be commensurate? But I suppose if companies out there keep
deciding in favor of things like Java and C++ (instead of Ada :-) then I
suppose it figures that they'll pay far more for land, salaries, utilities,
taxes, regulations, etc. than they would anywhere else. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


<tmoran@acm.org> wrote in message
news:7xTv7.11227$IY3.8208030@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
> >One of the most common reasons I hear for contractors moving from Ada is
>   It would surely help if Ada programming wasn't all located in less
> desirable locales.
> <gd&r> from beautiful Silicon Valley, where the weather is great, but
> Ada programmers have a *very* low profile. ;)

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9pvels$8rn$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
>
>Sillycon Valley has lots of reasons to be viewed as unattractive - why all
..
>place where property values are astronomical and traffic is horrible - with

That's pretty much my opinon of Silly Vally as well. An expensive house here in
Tulsa is one that goes for more than $150K. I'd have to make nearly that in a
year in salary to be able to even think about owning a house out there. 

I don't even think the *mayor* of Tulsa makes that much. :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Brian Rogoff]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Ted Dennison wrote:
> In article <9pvels$8rn$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
> >
> >Sillycon Valley has lots of reasons to be viewed as unattractive - why all

And oh so many reasons to be viewed as attractive, from a high tech
perspective. If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere (forgive me
New Yorkers :); the paucity of Ada jobs in The Valley has to say something
about the Ada market as a whole.

> >place where property values are astronomical and traffic is horrible - with
>
> That's pretty much my opinon of Silly Vally as well.

As is so often the case, your opinions are not in accord with reality.

Why anyone would want to live in a backwater like Tulsa is beyond me, but
to each his own I guess.

-- Brian

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Marin David Condic]

I have not been to Silly-con Valley in maybe a year or more & I never really
"lived" there - just rented space for extended periods of time. I'm told by
people I know that a basic sort of 3-bedroom house in an O.K. neighborhood
would cost a half-million bucks. I could buy a very large home on the
Intracoastal Waterway in a posh neighborhood around here for that kind of
money. Yet when I was out there, Cisco Systems was slamming down buildings
as fast as possible and you have to wonder why. Wouldn't it pay to move new
operations to some *other* part of the world that is as attractive or moreso
than the valley? I can see how if you've already built, you've got a major
investment you can't easily abandon, but if you want to build a whole slew
of new facilities, why not do it somewhere else?

Anyway, the trick for programmers was to earn the money in the Valley but
live somewhere else.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:VTHw7.21955$ev2.30646@www.newsranger.com...
>
> That's pretty much my opinon of Silly Vally as well. An expensive house
here in
> Tulsa is one that goes for more than $150K. I'd have to make nearly that
in a
> year in salary to be able to even think about owning a house out there.
>
> I don't even think the *mayor* of Tulsa makes that much. :-)
>

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Jeffrey Carter]

Since this is in Huntsville, AL, it may be NMD related. At least one
existing major Ada software system for NMD, developed by one of the
subcontractors, is being rewritten in "C++" by the prime
contractor/integrator, Boeing. All the evidence I saw indicates that
this is solely to give Boeing more control and more of the profits for
this project. The last I heard, there was no C++ on the project, just C
with "//" comments.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Perfidious English mouse-dropping hoarders."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3BBFB4BE.C4A775B9@acm.org>, Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> writes:
> Since this is in Huntsville, AL, it may be NMD related. At least one
> existing major Ada software system for NMD, developed by one of the
> subcontractors, is being rewritten in "C++" by the prime
> contractor/integrator, Boeing. All the evidence I saw indicates that
> this is solely to give Boeing more control and more of the profits for
> this project.

This supports the viewpoint that what is best for the contractor is not
necessarily the same as what is best for the project.  Perhaps subsequent
maintenance gets billed on a time-and-materials basis.

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3BBFB4BE.C4A775B9@acm.org>, Jeffrey Carter says...
>
>Since this is in Huntsville, AL, it may be NMD related. At least one
>existing major Ada software system for NMD, developed by one of the
>subcontractors, is being rewritten in "C++" by the prime
>contractor/integrator, Boeing. All the evidence I saw indicates that
>this is solely to give Boeing more control and more of the profits for
>this project. The last I heard, there was no C++ on the project, just C
>with "//" comments.

Ahh, well it that context it might not be such a bad move. That system will
never work anyway, why not move to chew up as many development dollars as
possible? :-{

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Richard Riehle]

"rob@NOTHERE" wrote:

> Air defense moving to C++ from Ada? are they crazy? with
> all the evidence that Ada is safer and more reliable than any C variation
> based language, who would make such a decision? Our tax payers money
> is being wasted here. What a waste. Is this supposed to make our defense
> software better?
>
> http://www.dice.com/DandL/l/lckmtncx.63005.html

There is no accounting for the depth of stupidity among those making
programming language decisions.   Unfortunately, this kind of thing
is more widespread than you might think.    On the positive side, some
better informed contractors continue to realize the benefits of Ada and
use it for new projects.

The reasons for abandoning Ada seldom have anything to do with its
technical superiority. Rather, those reasons given are usually related
to availability of tools and people.   Even now, with a lot of people
knowledgeable about Ada, and more tools than ever available, we
are plagued by the insufficiencies of the past.   In addition,  many in
the university computer science departments are failing to understand
their responsibilities toward industry.  They have adopted a kind of
snobbery that is impossible to overcome with reason.    I am fortunate
to have students who are required to take Ada, Java, and C++.
Many of those students realize the value of Ada even as their colleagues,
other professors, and superiors continue to view it with a disdain
rooted in ignorance.

Richard Riehle

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3BC0F319.C76E4E78@adaworks.com>, Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> writes:

> There is no accounting for the depth of stupidity among those making
> programming language decisions.   Unfortunately, this kind of thing
> is more widespread than you might think.    On the positive side, some
> better informed contractors continue to realize the benefits of Ada and
> use it for new projects.

If the path of Ada is in fact superior, those contractors will rise to
the top.

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Pi]

Larry Kilgallen wrote :

> In article <3BC0F319.C76E4E78@adaworks.com>, Richard Riehle
> <richard@adaworks.com> writes:
> 
> > There is no accounting for the depth of stupidity among those making
> > programming language decisions.   Unfortunately, this kind of thing
> > is more widespread than you might think.    On the positive side, some
> > better informed contractors continue to realize the benefits of Ada and
> > use it for new projects.
> 
> If the path of Ada is in fact superior, those contractors will rise to
> the top.

ROFL!

Since when has superiority any relation to succes???
We're using Windows, VHS-Disks, a cryppled Keyboard, etc

-- 
3,14159265359

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <Vu5MWbKlnIGK@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen says...
>
>In article <3BC0F319.C76E4E78@adaworks.com>, Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> writes:
>If the path of Ada is in fact superior, those contractors will rise to
>the top.

Using free-market based theory when talking about *government* contracting has
flaws so obvious, I'd think I don't even have to enumerate them...

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Petter Fryklund]

This is all good news for the Defence Industry outside the US! Particulary
the Swedish!

Re: why? US Army Ada software converted to C++?

[Alfred Hilscher]

Petter Fryklund wrote:
> 
> This is all good news for the Defence Industry outside the US! Particulary
> the Swedish!


???