Re: Data shows Top 50 Software Vendors not using Ada

[munnari.oz.au!uniwa!hawk!hawk!rodc@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Rod Cheshire)]

srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:

>     The Mandated world has for some time ignored all data about the
>dismal state of Ada use outside the Mandated world, which is a shame,
>considering the large amount of data available, data useful for redirecting
>DoD policies to make Ada successful.

>     Case in point.  The May 31, 1993 issue of Information Week has an annual
>review article on the Top 50 Independent Software Vendors.  Their collective
>revenues are over $16 billion a year, they employ about 100,000 people, and
>they dominate are setting standards for almost every field of computing for
>the future: operating systems, applications, CAD/CAM, CASE, MIS, EIS, 
>networking, communications, database management, graphics, publishing, etc.
>AND NONE OF THEM USE ADA AND NONE OF THEM ARE INVOLVED WITH DOD SOFTWARE
>POLICY ACTIVITIES.  Once again, when it comes to spending their OWN money,
>no one is spending it on Ada.

Why would a commercially oriented company spend a lot of money "tooling up"
on Ada when Languages like C and Pascal are taught in Universities?

>     For how long can the DoD isolate itself from the mainstream of American
>commercial software development?  Is this anyway to guarantee national
>security, by ignoring the very people and industries you are defending?
>I think not.  Drop the Ada Mandate and let the defense community more
>cost-effectively fulfill its requirements by being able to tap into this
>large, profitable, American-as-apple-pie, commercial software industry,
>an industry that is doing without tax dollars what the DoD Ada contractors
>are barely managing to do with tax dollars.

I agree. In the days when Software Engineering techniques, languages and
Quality Assurance
were a liitle more than a black art, the DoD and NASA desperately needed some
way to increase reliabilty, standardise and make the generation of software
more efficient. THINGS HAVE CHANGED or havent they noticed? Software
Engineering is actualy taught in universities and colleges, QA is a lot
better than it was then (thank industry leaders, sei etc) and modern 
languages/environments now alleviate the problems we had when Ada was
invented.

>    Here's a list of the companies in the Top 50:

>	Microsoft, Computer Associates, Oracle, Novell, Lotus, WordPerfect,
>Dun & Bradstreet, SAP AG, Software AG, Borland, Ask Group, Legent, Cadence,
>SAS Institute, Autodesk, Mentor Graphics, American Management Systems,
>Informix, Adobe, Sybase, BMC Software, System Software, Information Builders,
>Compuware, Symantec, Candle, Aldus, Santa Cruz Operation, J.D.Edwards,
>Structural Dynamics, Cincom Systems, Software Publishing, Systems Center
>Claris, Knowledgeware, Attachmate, Micro Focus, Interleaf, Software Toolworks,
>Banyan Systems, Comshare, Cognos, Boole and Babbage, Softlab AG, American
>Software, Parametric Technology, Cerner, Agency Management, Intuit and
>Medical Information Technology.


I reckon the Ada complier manufacturers realised that Ada, being a defence
related language, would be a gold mine (the $1000 coffee machine syndrome).
Surely by now, the cost of making Ada support environments has fallen?

>No Ada, mostly C/C++, some Cobol and Assembler and Lisp.  But no Ada.
>Until the DoD replaces wholescale its current managers and contractors with
>people who understand and subscribe to capitalism, Ada will remain as
>dead as Latin.

I personally would like to see Ada more widely used. However as an 
engineer I would like to have the flexability to use the best tool for the
job (providing I can justify using it).

Rod Cheshire
rodc@pf.adied.oz.au