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: fd6dd,c78177ec2e61f4ac
X-Google-Attributes: gidfd6dd,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c78177ec2e61f4ac
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn)
Subject: Re: ada and robots
Date: 1997/07/03
Message-ID: <gwinn-0307971226400001@dh5055246.res.ray.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 256710165
References: <338CDA96.53EA@halcyon.com> <338F5D7D.6C03@tiac.net>
 <338F9D05.5EB3@bix.com> <5mqpj3$bc5$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <33930245.12A1@sprintmail.com> <5mv984$7kn@news.emi.com>
 <gwinn-0306971836410001@smc19.ed.ray.com>
 <01bc7132$11100fa0$4c0b6dce@my-pc.neosoft.com>
 <gwinn-0506971900070001@smc19.ed.ray.com> <33A56EBE.748C@lmco.com>
 <gwinn-1706972210370001@dh5055155.res.ray.com> <33B51B61.2E26@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Raytheon Electronic Systems
Newsgroups: comp.robotics.misc,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <33B51B61.2E26@gsfc.nasa.gov>, Mike Stark
<michael.e.stark@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Joe Gwinn wrote:
> <snip> 
> 
> > The attractions of COTS software will nonetheless draw many DoD entities
> > to C/C++.
> 
> Which makes sense for the MIS applications -- I would be wary of
> embedding COTS inside a weapons system though.

Well, don't look now, because that's exactly what's happened.  And, by the
way, C is far ahead of Ada in the Air Traffic field, with or without the
FAA.


> > In the aftermath of the AAS debacle, the FAA has turned against Ada, and
> > now gives us the choice of C or C++.
> > 
> God save us all!  The AAS debacle was due to a lot of factors, IMO
> primarily
> requirements instability and failure to do any useful risk management. 
> The 
> FAA would do far better to procure and adapt ATC systems already in use
> in
> Europe or Canada (and readers of Dr. Feldman's periodic postings on
> non-DoD
> usage know what language _those_ are implemented in ;) than to start
> over from
> scratch in C or C++.  As a taxpayer, I am apalled by the waste of money
> in
> starting over.  As an airline passenger, I don't want the controller in
> the
> tower at Dulles to have his system crash while _my_ flight is in the
> landing
> pattern.  Just about every common OO language, and especially Ada and
> Eiffel,
> are more appropriate for safety critical systems!

I generally agree.  I didn't claim that Ada was the reason that AAS
crashed.  I doubt that any language, however perfect, could have saved
AAS.  It's a long and ugly story.   But, fair or not, the FAA has in fact
turned away from Ada.


Joe Gwinn