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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ad062b5cdc790a8c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-09 12:01:42 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!kjmiller.mitre.org!user From: kjmiller@mitre.org (Kevin Miller) Subject: Re: Air Force helping to undermine Ada Message-ID: Followup-To: comp.lang.ada Sender: news@linus.mitre.org (News Service) Nntp-Posting-Host: kjmiller.mitre.org Organization: MITRE References: Distribution: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 18:49:58 GMT Date: 1993-03-09T18:49:58+00:00 List-Id: In article , srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) wrote: > > A recent article in Network World show one way in which the DoD is > helping to undermine Ada acceptance. I will quote from the article (without > losing its essence) [Network World 3/8/93, 33]: > > XSoft, a division of Xerox, last week announced document-based work flow > software called InConcert, which provides a graphical user interface that > makes it possible for end users to construct a variety of complex work > flow applications. InConcert is client/server software that tracks and > coordinates all tasks in a work flow process and automatically delivers to > end users the business documents and applications they need to complete a > work flow task. Its server runs on Suns and RS6000s, as well as its clients > along with MSWindows. > The problem with many high-end work flow products, according to consultants, > is that they require programmers to build work flow applications using a high > level scripting language. This slows down the development process and takes > end users out of the loop. "InConcert's strength is its graphical work flow > design tool, which makes it possible for end users rather than programmers > to build work flow applications", says a consultant. > XSoft, which developed InConcert using the C++ programming language, has > published more than 270 application program interfaces that enable end-users > to integrate thiry part products with InConcert. Developers can also use > these APIs to embed software agents within InConcert that carry out processes > in response to predefined events. > > Another beta user, the U.S. Air Force, is implementing a work flow > system based on InConcert that specifies 1,400 tasks and 60 applications and > will be used by 10,000 people. > > ============================================================================== > > This is a good example of the beginning of the end of Ada inside the DoD > for two reasons. First, the Generals in charge are more and more going to > see that the information processing needs can be meet by taking commercial > products that are "open" and adapting them to defense needs, commercial > products all being written in C/C++. As 10,000 people and 60 applications > is a serious integration effort, comparable in scope to most other DoD > software efforts, one success makes it easier to do this again and again, > to the point where the Ada mandate becomes irrelevant. It is impossible > for the DoD RIGHT NOW to achieve a similar work flow system relying one > any commercial or non-commercial system written in Ada. As more and more > systems inside the DoD are based on C/C++ systems, the Mandate also becomes > uneconomical to retain. > The second reason that the Generals will desert Ada is that the success > of these such efforts will get them to start asking what is going on with > efforts like STARS to create Ada technology that increasingly is falling > farther and farther behind the commercial world. This questions the > competence of either Ada or Ada contractors, neither of which does much > good for retaining the Mandate. > > Thus my prediction: if you see more and more such stories about the > DoD solving its problems using C/C++ commercial software products, then > you know the handwriting will be on the wall for Ada. Any given the > technology I see at the commercial trade shows, I would bet MY money on > seeing more and more such stories. > > Greg Aharonian > Source Translation & Optimization > Are you saying that the government should go out and develop an application when there is a commercially available AND SUPPORTED product that meets the need? Doesn't sound very cost-effective to me. In a situation like this it would cost more for the government or Air Force to develop and maintain a seperate package, irregardless of the language. I would welcome the day when the government can satisfy all it's requirements with commerically developed and maintained packages. Until that time comes (if it ever does) the idea of having a single language for as much of the government-developed software as possible makes sense. I still maintain that Ada is a reasonable choice for such a language. Chasing after the language de jour only componds the kind of problems that the use of Ada was intended to address. > > (In fact, maybe the DoD should change the name of the language. When the > disease AIDS first became well known, a diet product pronounced the same > way changed its name because of confusion. Given that most corporate > executives think of the sound "ada" as standing for the Americans with > Disabilites Act, are we not risking subconcious confusion for Ada as a > disabled language :-) > -- > ************************************************************************** > Greg Aharonian > Source Translation & Optimiztion > P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178 ----------------------------------------------------- Kevin Miller | MITRE's lawyers can't moan, | MITRE Corporation | 'Cause what's stated up there, | Bedford, MA | Is my opinion alone, | (617) 271-4520 | And not MITRE's to bear. | kjmiller@mitre.org | | -----------------------------------------------------