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_00,FROM_WORDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc1b2,206c0414fb5fe3e X-Google-Attributes: gidfc1b2,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,206c0414fb5fe3e X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,21674edb667218cb,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-05 15:58:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr16.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,comp.lang.ada References: <945d79ff.0107312306.4665e855@posting.google.com> <3b67fd90_2@binarykiller.newsgroups.com> <421a7.235$0e7.91390140@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com> <3B6A1179.26C1C04@home.com> <3B6A15C3.8B3A9277@home.com> Subject: Re: Ada (was Rival JSF teams fly final STOVL flights with flair, highlight strengths) Organization: ex-FlashNet, now Prodigy X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.67.100.186 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com 997052247 ST000 65.67.100.186 (Sun, 05 Aug 2001 18:57:27 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 18:57:27 EDT X-UserInfo1: OP[YBY_D\JW]BFPYBJKBNRLI[B]NQHMIQQ]ZMVMHQAVTUZ]CLNTCPFK[WDXDHV[K^FCGJCJLPF_D_NCC@FUG^Q\DINVAXSLIFXYJSSCCALP@PB@\OS@BITWAH\CQZKJMMD^SJA^NXA\GVLSRBD^M_NW_F[YLVTWIGAXAQBOATKBBQRXECDFDMQ\DZFUE@\JM Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 22:57:27 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com rec.aviation.military:46931 rec.aviation.military.naval:11579 comp.lang.ada:11331 Date: 2001-08-05T22:57:27+00:00 List-Id: "Bob" wrote in message news:3B6A15C3.8B3A9277@home.com... : Ada is a programming language developed by DOD. The first standard was published : in 1983 (after a multi-year selection and refinement process involving Hundreds of : people in industry, government, and the military) and another updated design was : published in the mid 90s. It is a strongly typed language like Pascal that was : inbtended to support embedded programming. For a while it was mandated by law for : programs, but that was relieved some years ago. The 90s version incorporated : objects. : : The language is fine, but it is expensive because commercial use never caught on. : Tools are extremely expensive and available for only a few target computers. : Several late-80-s - early 90s aircraft projects were caught in the Ada mandate : F-22 among them. Actually, none of the statements above are quite true: - Ada is still used today on new commercial projects, - There are free, open source, and commercial versions of Ada toolsets available for a variety of platforms, including processors that run Microsoft Windows, Linux, and a variety of embedded OSs. - F-22 and other projects used Ada before there was a mandate, and continue to do after the lifting of the mandate. : Today most DOD projects use C or C++. C++ is basically Ada with full polymorphism : (objects)and C syntax. This is just plain wrong. : Actually, most C++ these days is just C compiled with a C++ : compiler. Object oriented systems in my experience do not provide any advantage in : real time development. I'm sure a lot of Ada zealots will flame this : statement,.but I have worked on C4I, signal processing, and now flight control for : UAVs and obect oriented design helps very little, and then in very obscure parts : of the system. Simple old techiques of modularity, high cohesion and low coupling : are more directly applicable. : : IMHO, Ada was killed by its proponents who made it a holy writ rather than a tool. : The more it was crammed down peoples throats the more they resisted. Another : factor was that the implicit development paradigm shifted from the 80s model of a : central computer with a lot of remote terminals (VAX) to the current : workstation/PC on a net model. : : The central computer allowed one compiler to serve many so a multi-thousand dollar : price tag was acceptable. But if each programmer had his/her own computer with : several times the Vax computing power having a local compiler made sense. Borland : and Microsoft provided Pascal or C/C++ for a few hundred dollars for each PC, and : SUN/HP/SGI were not very much more per station. In fact the Gnu compiler for C/C++ : is quite good and is free, and versions are available for both Windows and Unix. Not surprisingly, this is also true of the GNU Ada toolset! : Ada continues as a legacy language, with systems being derived from the projects : of the 80s/early 90s, but there are not a lot of new starts. One interesting note : is that most of the Boeing digital airliners use Ada, meaning any versions that : have fly-by-wire. But my view is that Boeing makes the tool work well for them : rather than the tool creating quality systems by virtue of its own qualities. : : I actually like Ada as a tool, but time and economics have passed it by. : : It should also be noted that many of the people that gave you Ada went on to work : at the DODs Software Engineering Institute (SEI) that gave us the highly : bureaucratic and expensive 5 level software process ratings. This is also a highly incorrect characterization of the Capability Maturity Model (presumably what is meant by "process ratings"). For more information on the Ada language, see comp.lang.ada : Bob : UAV Software Lead : : Buescher Family wrote: : : > What is Ada? The computer language? Anyone care to explain? : > : > Geoffrey : > : > Ken Garlington wrote: : > : > > : > > Well, it's true LM was an early adopter of Ada (anticipating the F-22 EMD : > > contract requirement, as mandated by the U.S. Congress). The statement is of : > > course wrong in every other respect. Considering that the tarverbot can't : > > even spell software (literally!), I suppose one true item in a sea of : > > inaccuracies is the best we can hope for... :