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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-07 09:14:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stueberl.de!teaser.fr!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 09:13:46 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1062951279 55099 137.194.161.2 (7 Sep 2003 16:14:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:14:39 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Warren W. Gay VE3WWG'" , Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcN1WLhpUHGhAxdwRsa3l1GwwVjO8AAAbruQ X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42238 Date: 2003-09-07T09:13:46-07:00 This is very interesting because the C language market will eventually go to C#. The DoD is continuing in its blunders. It would be very interesting to know if other countries were dumb enough to follow the US DoD's lead. Bob Leif Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. Email rleif@rleif.com -----Original Message----- From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 2:47 PM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? This is not a troll... but I am soliciting some opinion. I read a disturbing article in the July COTS Journal recently, and thought I would bounce the controversial aspects off of the group. The complete article can be read at: http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/pdfs/2003/07/COTS07_softside.pdf I have quoted some of the sections for ease of discussion below: >>From Article: Softer Side: Java in the Military Java Proving Itself Worthy for Defense Apps July 2003 COTS Journal [ 27 ] ... Navy's Open Architecture ======================== **** **** Among the key motivations for the military's interest in Java is a drive to transition away from Ada. **** **** The feeling is that Java represents a modern and more commercially available technology than alternatives. The Navy, for example, is drafting their Navy Open Architecture Computing Environment (NOACE) to be the standard for all future software systems on Navy warships. That includes shipboard weapon systems, such as anti-aircraft cannon controls as well as avionics systems aboard naval aircraft. The standard calls for all new software to develop in either C++ or Java, and makes specific mention of moving away from Ada. They plan to continue to use Ada only as required to support legacy systems that have already been developed. ... Moving Away from Ada ==================== For its part, Boeing has also expressed a clear preference to move toward Java. Winner of the lead system integrator contract on for U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, Boeing is farming out their FCS requirements and telling suppliers they want to use Java, they don't **** **** like C++ and they don't like Ada for any new system development. Many **** **** suppliers to FCS are therefore tasked to convert reams of Ada code over to Java. There are some basic human resources reasons why Java is a preferred approach. Today's new graduates from college are 99% more likely to know Java than any other programming language. And among experienced programmers out in the workforce, more will tend to highlight Java on their resume rather than Ada. The ranks of true Ada gurus are probably comprised more of programmers near retirement than otherwise. SOME OBSERVATIONS: ================== I have seen many quotes here in comp.lang.ada and other web sources that only the mandate to use Ada has been dropped. The position that is usually made is that Ada is still considered on a project by project basis, where it makes sense. However, if the above article is accurate, it seems that the U.S. military (and Boeing) is making a conscious effort to move away from Ada. The article is suggesting that the only reason to use Ada now would be for legacy systems. Boeing apparently does not want to use Ada in any new development. CONCLUSION: Whether or not you agree with the reasoning in the article, the disturbing thing in my mind is the "mindset". If the military and big industrial companies like Boeing turn their back on Ada, where is Ada headed for in the future? Is there enough other momentum to keep Ada (and GNAT) going into the foreseeable future? I attended a small Real-Time conference last week in Toronto, and I only heard the name Ada mentioned once, and in a negative way (in passing reference WRT Real-Time Java). None of the vendors there that I talked to were using Ada for their SBC and the one vendor for flight systems told me they simply do not have the customer demand for Ada systems. So: Is the writing on the wall for Ada? What is your take on the article? -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg