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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e29c511c2b08561c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: emery@grebyn.com (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?
Date: 1996/07/10
Message-ID: <emery-1007962018330001@line047.nwm.mindlink.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167710008
references: <9606212019.AA11075@eight-ball>
 <gwinn-2506961919470001@smc19.ed.ray.com> <4qqc4s$flv@felix.seas.gwu.edu>
 <gwinn-2706961648080001@smc19.ed.ray.com> <nhbui2uhwc.fsf@paralysys>
 <gwinn-0307962011210001@smc19.ed.ray.com> <4rrrvg$j9b@rational.rational.com>
 <gwinn-1007961352370001@smc19.ed.ray.com>
organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <gwinn-1007961352370001@smc19.ed.ray.com>, gwinn@res.ray.com
(Joe Gwinn) wrote:

> ...I have read the
> actual FAA RFPs; they are quite clear.  They list ANSI C and C++ as the
> only allowed choices.  Ada is nowhere mentioned, a sharp contrast with
> previous FAA RFPs, which mandated Ada.
> 
> Joe Gwinn

And, in my opinion, this insistence on inferior technology does NOT
contribute to my confidence in either the FAA as an acqusition agency or
the forthcoming FAA systems.

I'm now working on an ATC system (in Ada, of course), and I can't imagine
someone choosing C or C++ for a system this large that has such a large
safety component.

Can I "measure" this?  No, as this is the only ATC I've worked on.  But I've
seen lots and lots of coding errors that were caught by the compiler in 
Ada, that would, AT BEST, be caught during debugging in a C or C++ environment.
This is not to say that Ada produces "safe, correct code".  Far from it.
But it sure helps!

               dave