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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,707ffbf6ec9d1855 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.adelphia.com!news.adelphia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:28:10 -0600 From: "Robert Klungle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <20051222102521644-0600@news.airmail.net> <20051222152554655-0600@news.airmail.net> <20051223110200413-0600@news.airmail.net> Subject: Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:33:43 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.68.62.75 X-Trace: sv3-bTsfNoDbsabmmTqle4Sl9rYSJd0ekyDESRnCZV5Uhk3JcP4f1flRuVhKdN2idFNMIYBWG6rq1cKz1CZ!bHi550VH8MoEhKxxVhBZ/qD/EtkQp6j3sM53L3NlYVfjGs4QtBSqhR545JChVj5GfsaA5Y79zQqQ!pOwRfcJ9MAkadTa9AO1+k4v1C/w= X-Complaints-To: abuse@adelphia.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: copyright@adelphia.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2438 Date: 2006-01-03T22:33:43-08:00 List-Id: "Joseph Vlietstra" wrote in message news:OKgrf.5742$mj1.1091@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Some answers about the SBIRS program. > - The SBIRS program was plagued by poor initial systems engineering. > Those responsible have been replaced and we were able to get the > program somewhat back on track last fall. We can't undo all of the > stupid mistakes but I think we can get at least 95% functionality. > (The more optimistic think we can score 100%) > - Flight software is written in Ada 95 using Rational Apex compiler. > The only problems we've had with the development environment were > self-induced (e.g., attempting an Apex/ClearCase integration before > it was released by Rational). > - We considered GNAT at the start of the project and contacted ACT. > For whatever reason, they weren't interested in developing a GNAT > compiler for us. (I don't think they realized that we would play > for the development.) In any case, we're happy with Rational Apex. > - We also considered using a GNU C/C++ compiler but it ran slower > than the Rational Ada code. This isn't an Ada is faster than C++ > claim -- Lockheed-Martin spent a lot of money to have a good Ada > compiler available; the C++ compiler was an afterthought for the > hardware test group. > - There were several subtle hardware glitches that required software > fixes. This is a typical problem for a development program. > We all learned Chapter 13 of the LRM by heart. > Anyone claiming that Ada was the problem is either ignorant of the > circumstances or hoping to obscure the initial systems engineering > problems. In fact, Ada's language features allowed us to get as > far as we have. > > Joe Vlietstra Joe presents a good partial description of what happened. There is a lot more to it which had nothing to do with coding. Five major problems leading up to the situation were: 1. Incomplete and incorrect requirements through PDR (which was failed previously.) 2. Incomplete and incorrect design mechanisms leading to individuals designing the same thing more than once, not knowing what the others were doing (multiple CPUs with similar functionality.) Eventually leading to a system which would not perform (loss of messages) at 70% loading. The system was completely redesigned from the ground up in a matter of 5 months. The system is now heading for success (disregarding the usual integration problems.) 3. Management chain failure due to little or no knowledge regarding software development. 4. Incorrect or misleading design specifications on the SBC containing the RH-32(s) from the supplier. 5. Low ball funding and late resource allocation to the project on the part of the government and contractor(s). I could continue with a very long list but you should get the idea. Bottom line, Ada had nothing to do with the problem(s), and in fact actually contributed to them having any success at all. Incidentally, someone mentioned Wynne (in a later posting) casting aspersions on Ada. He is getting his information from others who have a specific agenda to remove Ada from the development list (been hearing it in PDRs and PDAs). There is a general belief that "No one can find any Ada developers. Ada is not being taught in schools. Systems Engineers and Mathematicians coming out of school only know c++ and refuse to learn Ada." Note this is a direct quote from a high level government person, which I took issue with. The problem of Ada(s) reputation and viability is very big and going down hill rapidly, if observations are any indication. Note I don't think this is a conspiracy, just a serious case of decisions being made by the wrong people with little or no correct information. cheers...bob