Re: ada and robots

[gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn)]

In article <33A56EBE.748C@lmco.com>, Ken Garlington
<Kennie.E.Garlington@lmco.com> wrote:

> > So he's flip-flopped?  I saw his previous missive, a week or two ago, and
> > it was quite clear.
> 
> These words [below]?

Yes, and the missive or missives that preceeded it.

> ........................................................................
> 
> From: "Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <paigee@osd.pentagon.mil>
> To: LTC Drew Hamilton <dj7560@eecs1.eecs.usma.edu>
> Subject: Re: FW: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:10:00 -0500
> 
> THANK GOD , THIS IS AMERICA.
> 
> THE BUCK STOPS HERE .  I HAVE TRIED EVERY ROUTE ONE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE
> TO HAVE FOLKS RUN WITH ADA SINCE 1979 WHEN I FIRST GOT INVOLVED. THE
> MANDATES HAVE NOT WORKED FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS,C3I SYSTEMS OR OUR BUSINESS
> SYSTEMS.  IT HAS ONLY WORKED WHERE I PERSONALLY DECIDED TO FORCE THE
> ACTION SUCH AS WITH STANFINS-REDESIGN AND SIDPERS III AS FAR AS MAJOR
> SYSTEMS I WAS ASSOCIATED WITH ARE CONCERNED.

Now it can be told.

 
> I AM VERY SATISFIED AND COMFORTABLE WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE MANDATE.
> WE WILL CONTUNIE TO SUPPORT THE ADA EFFORT TO THE TUNE THAT THE NRC
> RECOMMENDED OF APPROX $15MIL PER YEAR. THAT SHOULD BE EVIDENT THAT OUR
> INTEREST STILL EXISTS IN ADA.

As it should be.


> > 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.
> 
> This, of course, implies that DoD contractors choose Ada because it is
> mandated. In fact, as Mr. Paige notes above, the mandate may in fact
> have worked _against_ adoption in some areas.

I believe that his suspicion is likely correct.  I certainly saw that in
action.  

The limitations of early Ada compilers certainly didn't help, either.  Nor
did the approach of some in the Ada community, insisting that the problems
were really features.


> I am currently working on a DoD contract with no language requirement;
> we still use Ada. I think if we and other DoD contractors stop using
> Ada,
> then Ada vendors should be concerned, but so long as there is a viable
> customer base, I expect there will be an Ada vendor base to support it.

This is as it should have always been: no force-fits.  

The attractions of COTS software will nonetheless draw many DoD entities
to C/C++.  

In the aftermath of the AAS debacle, the FAA has turned against Ada, and
now gives us the choice of C or C++.


> > 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.
> 
> Product managers who cannot survive the removal of Government mandates
> have
> more problems than choosing languages, now that we are in the age of
> acquisition reform. Their "gut-wrenching question" is to decide whether
> they should be working at McDonalds or Burger King :)

Umm.  The survival question hinges upon their ability to make money on
added money invested in Ada tools of any and all kinds.  If their little
profit and loss center doesn't show a good return on investment, they will
soon be flipping burgers, which may cause them to have difficulty meeting
their mortgage.  Thus, they tend to be nervous sorts, skittish in
uncertain environments.  Removal of the mandate makes the environment much
less certain than before, so they tend to hold back.  It's that simple,
and has nothing to do with the merits of Ada.


Joe Gwinn