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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: wilson Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: F-22 ADA Programming Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 01:43:11 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <3d5997a0-fc19-4265-9ca4-89b004974829@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: XyA3buM6kM9OyLmgwus0iw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.17 (Win32) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 141114-0, 11/14/2014), Outbound message Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190655 Date: 2014-11-15T01:43:11-05:00 List-Id: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:46:19 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:54:34 -0800 (PST), rriehle@itu.edu declaimed the > following: > >> I recall from when I was actively teaching Ada that one large DoD >> contractor (one of the largest) decided to use C++ instead of Ada. The >> reason? We can hire C++ programmers right out of college. This is >> rather strange. Why would they think that recent college graduates >> schooled in a clunky language such as C++, where they wrote mostly toy >> programs using features that we cannot allow (notice the long list of >> proscriptions for JSF), who need to be retaught how to use the language >> safely -- how can they think they are getting any benefit? I used to >> ask they, "Why would you choose a programming language that is >> inherently error-prone and expect an outcome that is error-free?" >> Answer: "Go away Richard. We have made our decision." >> > > Well... I was in a program where the "real-time" group (about 30 > people, out of 130 in the department) did a study to determine what > language they would use when moving from PDP-11 assembly to a suite of > VAX-11 systems. I don't know what the real arguments were, but they > rejected VAX-11 assembly (fine, it is a different instruction set), > rejected F77 [remember those other 100 employees? we were all skilled in > VAX F77]... They did reject C! (yay, one win). > > They chose DEC Pascal to implement the ground-base real-time system! > Main argument -- they could find Pascal programmers coming out of college > (dates this effort, doesn't it?) Though what a bunch of Turbo-Pascal > users > would be capable of on a multiprocessing OS I have no idea (I don't > recall > any significant hiring taking place either). > > The decision made when I learned of the "study" I still submitted a > comment to the management emphasizing that we had a significant staff > skilled in F77 with DEC extensions (I once bent the I/O system to do > double-buffered 9-track tape input -- all using F77 constructs!). I also > emphasized that, as long as they were going to go the mile for Pascal, > they > should have fallen onto their faces and picked up Ada which was designed > for the type of application they were making, and corrected the flaws of > Pascal. > > Ah well, probably the same contractor -- current initials of LM -- When I aaked a DOD contractor in the late 90s why they changed to C++ the answer was: We can hire C++ programmers from the local college, but they seem incapable of learning Ada. I wonder how many other languages these "programmers" could learn.