comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* AJPO is still clueless about the reality of DoD Ada rejection
@ 1996-03-15  0:00 Gregory Aharonian
  1996-03-18  0:00 ` Ken Garlington
  1996-03-19  0:00 ` Robert Munck
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Aharonian @ 1996-03-15  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)


    My recent posting stirred some phone calls.  What a joke.   A programmer
from a DoD contractor tired of the pathetic rationalizations coming out of
AJPO (like that COTS is compatible with the Ada Mandate - what a lie), sent
me the following observation of how programming really gets done inside the
DoD.  The fundamental Ada management policy is still dishonesty - dishonest
analysis of Ada vendors and contractors, dishonest measurement of DoD
language use, dishonest justifications for porky STARS, etc. etc.

                              ====================

Greg, I laugh when I see:

> Ada is still required any time new software is written.

I work on a large military project.   We develop 80% of our new code in
C, 10% in C++, and 10% in Ada (my best estimate).  We have to work lots 
of COTS software into our system and we integrate on Unix platforms.   
That is why we write most of our code in C.   It's a whole lot easier
than retrofitting Ada to a myriad of C interfaces.   Writing Ada bindings
for the C universe and COTS software takes a lot of time and is often an
error prone process, as it is with many foreign language interface endeavors.

The project I work on has 80 software engineers.   Has 2 million lines
of delivered code and is a mission critical DoD system.

It is a perfect candidate for Ada in the DoD mindset.   It is a large
software engineering project.   Ada is avoided with every caveat possible.

We are working in a rapid-prototyping environment where integrating 
3rd Party COTS software quickly is paramount.   Our schedules are very
aggressive.  Using C instead of Ada helps us meet our schedules quickly.
Our C SDEs are far more advanced and robust than our Ada SDEs.  Our Ada
SDE symbolic debugger won't even attach to a UNIX process and the compiler
vendor is a major player in the Ada market.   This is laughable in 1996.

The language lawyers can argue this anyway that they want, but the facts
are the facts.  Software engineering economics prevail.  C is a lot
cheaper, quicker, and more reliable than Ada for this project.

                              ====================

Ada avoided as much as possible.  Ada tools still trailing C tools in 1996.
HEAR THAT AJPO????????????????????????

                              ====================

   Here is what originally provoked the programmer:

Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >
> > Reflecting this, in a recently Air Force Scientific Advisory Board report
> > titled "New World Vistas", the panel, along with pushing COTS greatly, also
> > suggested that the Air Force should cease developing software tools and
> > compilers, abandon the DoD's Ada computer language mandate; and depend on
> > aircraft manufacturers to design aircraft cockpits.
> 
> I called Joan McGarity at AJPO (703-681-2463) to find out more
> about the SAB report. Here's what she told me:
> 
> She confirmed that Mr. Paige's office is investigating the
> paragraph in the recent Scientific Advisory Board report
> that was critical of Ada. Both John Goodenough and Larry
> Druffel have indicated that Ada was never discussed by the
> SAB, and that the words in the report were not coordinated
> with the panel prior to publication.
> 
> As a result, I doubt that the SAB report will carry much weight. It
> certainly was not reflected in the new DoD acquision reform direction:
> 
> The new DoDD 5001. and DoDI 5000.2 does not change DoD
> Ada policy. In particular, Ada is still required any time
> new software is written, and DoDD 3405.1 still provides
> the details regarding waivers, etc. There will be a new
> DoDD 3405.1 released very soon (it was held up to allow
> DoDI 5000.2 to be released first), but it will not
> significantly change.

Look, COTS and the Ada Mandate are incompatible, and where they aren't,
Ada is still rejected anyways by DoD programmers.  The Ada Mandate is the
55-mph-speed-limit regulation for DoD programmers.  Sounds nice in theory,
ignored by everyone in practice, because the waiver policy is still a joke.
How can Paige's office expect anyone to take them seriously about enforcing
the Mandate when they can't even track what's written in DoD software reports?

And I don't know what high schools they go trawling through looking for
people to serve on Defense Science Boards, but the only thing worse than
having the SAB panel discuss ditching Ada is that in its discussions of
Air Force software activities (according to Goodenough and Druffel) is that
Ada wasn't discussed at all.


Greg Aharonian




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-03-28  0:00 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1996-03-15  0:00 AJPO is still clueless about the reality of DoD Ada rejection Gregory Aharonian
1996-03-18  0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-03-18  0:00   ` Byron B. Kauffman
1996-03-21  0:00     ` Ken Garlington
1996-03-28  0:00       ` Peter Finney
1996-03-19  0:00 ` Robert Munck
1996-03-19  0:00   ` Is COTS the answer? Ted Dennison
1996-03-25  0:00     ` AdaWorks
1996-03-20  0:00   ` AJPO is still clueless about the reality of DoD Ada rejection David Emery
1996-03-20  0:00     ` David Emery

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox