Re: Waiver question

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

Ken said

<<  *  DSP engineers would rather program in C++ than Ada, since it
     makes them more valuable in the larger commericial marker. As a
     result, there is much higher attrition when DSP engineers are
     required to program in Ada, and so the development cost is higher.

  *  Most DSP tools are for C/C++. The number of DSP tools for Ada
     will shrink, given that the DoD has decided not to mandate Ada
     anymore.

  *  Most existing DSP code is in C/C++. Therefore, reuse is easier
     if the new code is also written in C++.
>>

The first argument seems pretty bogus to me -- Ken, is this just a guess,
or is it based on informal ancedotal experience (if so I have anecdotes
to refute it), or is it based on hard data -- if the latter, ;et's see
the data.

The second argument is also speculative. From where I sit it seems likely
to be quite wrong. Again, you need data to back his up.

The third argument is the only relevant one to consider, and here the
issue is solely whether there are good Ada tools that can interface
to the existing C/C++ code that is to be reused.

I think that's the only real issue. Rather than make bogus generalizations
about DSP's as a class. The proper issue is to look at the very specific
circcumstances. given the DSP or DSP's to be chosen, what Ada tools are
available, or could be made available, and how well would they work? A
waiver is reasonable or not depending on the answer to this question!

Remember here that TI recently voted with significant $$$ in their 
confidence in the viability and importance of Ada on DSP's. I find
tthat more convincing than Ken's dataless speculations!