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,
	LOTS_OF_MONEY 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: 1997/06/05
Message-ID: <gwinn-0506971900070001@smc19.ed.ray.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 248286068
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>
Organization: Raytheon Electronic Systems
Newsgroups: comp.robotics.misc,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <01bc7132$11100fa0$4c0b6dce@my-pc.neosoft.com>, "Pat Rogers"
<progers@acm.org> wrote:

> Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote in article
> <gwinn-0306971836410001@smc19.ed.ray.com>...
> > In article <5mv984$7kn@news.emi.com>, jejo@empireone.net (Jesse Johnson)
> wrote:
> [snip]

> > Most "Ada systems" I have seen built recently are actually mixed-language
> > systems, being a mix of C, C++, and Ada, with the Ada being in the
> > minority (maybe 25%), if one counts all the purchased COTS code in the
> > system.  Typically, the operating system, middleware, and GUI stuff are
> > all in C, and the application code is mostly in Ada (with C bindings, and
> > no Ada runtime).
> 
> No run-time, huh.  That would be interesting to see.

Some of our biggest problems with Ada83 came from the runtime, so the
usual solution was to truncate the runtime, and instead call the
underlying OS (or even CPU hardware) directly from Ada.  This was done
long before C turned up.


> > I would also comment that DoD's recent recinding of the Ada Mandate will
> > likely cause the Ada compiler and tools market to shrink to perhaps as
> > little as one tenth of its prior size, and that significant added
> > investment in Ada compilers and tools is therefore unlikely, at least
> > until the size of the remaining market becomes clear.  
> 
> The Hon. Sec. Paige has said that -- in contrast to rescinding the policy
> -- it will follow the board's recommendation to fund the $15 million for
> infrastructure.

So he's flip-flopped?  I saw his previous missive, a week or two ago, and
it was quite clear.  Actually, he cannot call his words back at this
point; the writing is on the wall.  If you were the product manager for an
ada compiler, wouldn't this stop you in your tracks, afraid to invest more
money, until the smoke cleared?  The very fact that the future of the
mandate is questioned in public and at that level of the DoD is the
story.  If not today, what of tomorrow?  The mandate's days are numbered. 
Will it last long enough for a new investment to be recovered?  A
gut-wrenching question.  Product mamgers get to bet their careers on such
questions.


Joe Gwinn