Ada in Iraq

Ada in Iraq

[Russ]

I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? I don't care about exact figures, I
just want good ballpark estimates. Let's break it down as follows:

CCCI: 

satellites: 

fighter/attack aircraft: 

bombers: 

precision-guided bombs:

missiles: 

anti-missiles: 

artillary: 

equipment carried by ground-troops: 

tanks and personnel carriers:

shipboard systems: 

other?

If you know only about specific areas, please limit your reply to
those areas. Thanks.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Russ wrote:
> I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
> software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
> war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? 

Why?

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Samuel Tardieu]

Preben Randhol wrote:

> Russ wrote:
>> I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
>> software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
>> war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? 
> 
> Why?

Why not? This question is as interesting as many others asked in this
newsgroup, and you didn't question each of them :)

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>> Russ wrote:
>>> I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
>>> software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
>>> war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? 
>> 
>> Why?
> 
> Why not? This question is as interesting as many others asked in this
> newsgroup, and you didn't question each of them :)

No no, I meant why as in: Why do you want to know, what are you using it
for?

I don't think Ada will gain any popularity if people start with
signatures like: 60% of the software in the War on Iraq was written in
Ada. May be in military circles, but not elsewhere.

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[tmoran]

> I don't think Ada will gain any popularity if people start with
> signatures like: 60% of the software in the War on Iraq was written in
> Ada. May be in military circles, but not elsewhere.
  But aren't all those planning room laptops shown on TV running Windows?
Also, I understood a lot of the highest tech gear spent the war on a
slow boat from Turkey.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Russ]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbact04.tee.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > Preben Randhol wrote:
> > 
> >> Russ wrote:
> >>> I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
> >>> software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
> >>> war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? 
> >> 
> >> Why?
> > 
> > Why not? This question is as interesting as many others asked in this
> > newsgroup, and you didn't question each of them :)
> 
> No no, I meant why as in: Why do you want to know, what are you using it
> for?

I work for a US government lab that does extensive work in air traffic
management (ATM). We will have major input into the future of ATM in
the US. As some of you may recall, I have a problem with some of Ada's
syntax, but I am nevertheless convinced that Ada is fundamentally
solid and is the right choice for the kind of software we develop and
will develop in the future.

Unfortunately, however, none of my colleagues is even willing to
consider using Ada. It's considered a "non-starter." C, C++, and Java
are the only languages considered. Ada wasn't even on the radar screen
until I brought it up. Also, I get the impression that professors who
study safety-critical systems are mostly using Java. "Real-time Java"
is gaining major momentum, and I fear that it could crush Ada.

I have the privledge of working with top experts in the world on
"revolutionary" new ATM system architectures. I ocassionally try to
sell them on Ada, but my efforts are starting to become a sort of
joke. Some of them think I am "obsessed" with Ada, and none of them
seems to think the choice of language is of fundamental importance
anyway. It's an "implementation detail" as far as most of the managers
are concerned.

> I don't think Ada will gain any popularity if people start with
> signatures like: 60% of the software in the War on Iraq was written in
> Ada. May be in military circles, but not elsewhere.

I don't know how much it will help, but if I can say that, say, 2/3 of
the real-time military software used in Iraq was written in Ada, I
think many people would be impressed. As an advocate of Ada, I
wouldn't be out there on the fringe anymore.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Bill Findlay]

On 23/4/03 18:51, in article
bebbba07.0304230951.59468757@posting.google.com, "Russ"
<18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> 
> I work for a US government lab that does extensive work in air traffic
> management (ATM). We will have major input into the future of ATM in
> the US. As some of you may recall, I have a problem with some of Ada's
> syntax, but I am nevertheless convinced that Ada is fundamentally
> solid and is the right choice for the kind of software we develop and
> will develop in the future.
> 
> Unfortunately, however, none of my colleagues is even willing to
> consider using Ada. It's considered a "non-starter." C, C++, and Java
> are the only languages considered. Ada wasn't even on the radar screen
> until I brought it up. Also, I get the impression that professors who
> study safety-critical systems are mostly using Java. "Real-time Java"
> is gaining major momentum, and I fear that it could crush Ada.

I find the idea that ATM systems might be programmed in C, C++, or
Java quite terrifying.

With C and C++, at least everyone knows they are skating on thin ice.

But Java has been sold as 'secure' and 'easy to use'.

In fact its concurrency support is sloppy, in ways that are highly likely to
cause latent errors. The RTSJ 'real time' fixup engineering that has been
done on it is a quixotic attempt to fit it for a completely inappropriate
mode of use and does little or nothing to remedy its intrinsic defects.

-- 
Bill-Findlay chez blue-yonder.co.uk ("-" => "")

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Stefan Scholl]

On 2003-04-23 19:51:13, Russ wrote:
> anyway. It's an "implementation detail" as far as most of the managers
> are concerned.

Give them the Boeing 777 story to read:
<http://www.adaic.com/atwork/boeing.html>

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> wrote:

>On 2003-04-23 19:51:13, Russ wrote:
>> anyway. It's an "implementation detail" as far as most of the managers
>> are concerned.
>
>Give them the Boeing 777 story to read:
><http://www.adaic.com/atwork/boeing.html>

BTDT. Doesn't help.


Vinzent.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

>>Give them the Boeing 777 story to read:
>><http://www.adaic.com/atwork/boeing.html>

hee-hee.  Some said "Ada is too immature"
How many of us know fifty-year-olds that
never grew up?   C is like that.

C becoming Java is like Peter Pan finally reaching puberty.

OK, let me be a little more serious.  Can we partially
equate "mature language" to "high-order language" ?

I am just finishing up a college course in Java.

Reflecting back on the good, the bad, and the ugly:

Good:

  - All the times (not as many as I was led to expect)
    where I saved time by calling some existing standard
    library instead of writing my own.

Bad:

  - All the times (not as many as I was led to expect)
    where I wasted time repeatedly writing low-level
    implementations of things that Ada has built in.

Ugly:

  - Line after line of defined integer constants to
    get the readability benefits of enumerated types
    with not even a hint of their type safety.

  - Most "roll-your-own" imitations of high-level
    language features are seriously less readable
    than built-in versions.

  - (A.multiply(A)).add (B.multiply(B))  instead of
    A * A + B * B

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Wesley Groleau wrote:
  
"  Ugly:
[..]
  
    - (A.multiply(A)).add (B.multiply(B))  instead of
      A * A + B * B
"

Bah.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Georg Bauhaus]

Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
: 
:  - (A.multiply(A)).add (B.multiply(B))  instead of
:    A * A + B * B

You are caught in your Ada habits :-)

   - (A.times(A)).plus (B.times(B))

Quite readable, isn't it?

-- Georg

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
> : 
> :  - (A.multiply(A)).add (B.multiply(B))  instead of
> :    A * A + B * B
> 
> You are caught in your Ada habits :-)
> 
>    - (A.times(A)).plus (B.times(B))
> 
> Quite readable, isn't it?

No.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Georg Bauhaus]

Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
: Georg Bauhaus wrote:
:> Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
:> : 
:> :  - (A.multiply(A)).add (B.multiply(B))  instead of
:> :    A * A + B * B
:> 
:> You are caught in your Ada habits :-)
:> 
:>    - (A.times(A)).plus (B.times(B))
:> 
:> Quite readable, isn't it?
: 
: No.
: 
o.K., how would you write

  (X.fits(A)).or (X.fits(B)) ?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:

> Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
> : Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> :> Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
> :> : 
> :> :  - (A.multiply(A)).add (B.multiply(B))  instead of
> :> :    A * A + B * B
> :> 
> :> You are caught in your Ada habits :-)
> :> 
> :>    - (A.times(A)).plus (B.times(B))
> :> 
> :> Quite readable, isn't it?
> : 
> : No.
> : 
> o.K., how would you write
> 
>   (X.fits(A)).or (X.fits(B)) ?
> 

(or (fits (x a)) (fits (x b))) :-)

or

fits(x,a) or fits(x,b)

or

x.fits(a) or x.fits(b)


-- 
Ole-Hj. Kristensen

******************************************************************************
* You cannot consistently believe this sentence.
******************************************************************************

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Russ]

18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0304230951.59468757@posting.google.com>...

> I work for a US government lab that does extensive work in air traffic
> management (ATM). We will have major input into the future of ATM in
> the US. As some of you may recall, I have a problem with some of Ada's
> syntax, but I am nevertheless convinced that Ada is fundamentally
> solid and is the right choice for the kind of software we develop and
> will develop in the future.
> 
> Unfortunately, however, none of my colleagues is even willing to
> consider using Ada. It's considered a "non-starter." C, C++, and Java
> are the only languages considered. Ada wasn't even on the radar screen
> until I brought it up. Also, I get the impression that professors who
> study safety-critical systems are mostly using Java. "Real-time Java"
> is gaining major momentum, and I fear that it could crush Ada.
> 
> I have the privledge of working with top experts in the world on
> "revolutionary" new ATM system architectures. I ocassionally try to
> sell them on Ada, but my efforts are starting to become a sort of
> joke. Some of them think I am "obsessed" with Ada, and none of them
> seems to think the choice of language is of fundamental importance
> anyway. It's an "implementation detail" as far as most of the managers
> are concerned.

Let me follow up on my earlier post. Here is an excerpt from an email
I recently received from a very competent and productive software
engineer who works down the hall from me and who has great influence
over our choice of language:

Your continued obsession with Ada for purely academic reasons is a
seemingly naive approach to real software development.  I have not
seen any legitimate justification for switching to Ada.  Which feature
of Ada critical to our **** development cannot be achieved with
C/C++/Java?  There are several reasons why Ada is not practical. 
First, there is no in-house large-scale Ada application development
experience among the software developers or civil servants.  We can't
wait around while 40 developers come up speed. Furthermore, i'll be
blunt and say there was "little" in-house C++  experience when the
**** was redesigned and we're still paying the price for that
inexperience.  Second, the FAA does not use Ada for the rest of its
FFP software development.  The bottomline is that in today's world, if
you want to draw from the largest pool of talent, you better be
programming in C, C++ or Java.  Call it inertia if you want. It
doesn't matter really.  Ultimately, any truly critical Ada feature
will eventually be added to C++ or Java.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John R. Strohm]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0304241712.698fbc85@posting.google.com...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message
news:<bebbba07.0304230951.59468757@posting.google.com>...
>
> > I work for a US government lab that does extensive work in air traffic
> > management (ATM). We will have major input into the future of ATM in
> > the US. As some of you may recall, I have a problem with some of Ada's
> > syntax, but I am nevertheless convinced that Ada is fundamentally
> > solid and is the right choice for the kind of software we develop and
> > will develop in the future.
> >
> > Unfortunately, however, none of my colleagues is even willing to
> > consider using Ada. It's considered a "non-starter." C, C++, and Java
> > are the only languages considered. Ada wasn't even on the radar screen
> > until I brought it up. Also, I get the impression that professors who
> > study safety-critical systems are mostly using Java. "Real-time Java"
> > is gaining major momentum, and I fear that it could crush Ada.
> >
> > I have the privledge of working with top experts in the world on
> > "revolutionary" new ATM system architectures. I ocassionally try to
> > sell them on Ada, but my efforts are starting to become a sort of
> > joke. Some of them think I am "obsessed" with Ada, and none of them
> > seems to think the choice of language is of fundamental importance
> > anyway. It's an "implementation detail" as far as most of the managers
> > are concerned.
>
> Let me follow up on my earlier post. Here is an excerpt from an email
> I recently received from a very competent and productive software
> engineer who works down the hall from me and who has great influence
> over our choice of language:
>
> Your continued obsession with Ada for purely academic reasons is a
> seemingly naive approach to real software development.  I have not
> seen any legitimate justification for switching to Ada.  Which feature
> of Ada critical to our **** development cannot be achieved with
> C/C++/Java?  There are several reasons why Ada is not practical.
> First, there is no in-house large-scale Ada application development
> experience among the software developers or civil servants.  We can't
> wait around while 40 developers come up speed. Furthermore, i'll be
> blunt and say there was "little" in-house C++  experience when the
> **** was redesigned and we're still paying the price for that
> inexperience.  Second, the FAA does not use Ada for the rest of its
> FFP software development.  The bottomline is that in today's world, if
> you want to draw from the largest pool of talent, you better be
> programming in C, C++ or Java.  Call it inertia if you want. It
> doesn't matter really.  Ultimately, any truly critical Ada feature
> will eventually be added to C++ or Java.

I fear that your Ada proselytizing efforts, and more to the point your ATM
project, are already doomed.  The decision, at least in this guy's mind, has
already been made.

Boeing faced EXACTLY those problems on the 777 project.  In particular, the
brake controller subcontractor had NO Ada experience, and they screamed
bloody murder.  After Boeing told them "If you don't want to do this project
our way, we can certainly find another subcontractor who will", they sat
down and learned Ada.  Result: even though they had to start late, and even
though they had to train people from scratch, and even though they had to
throw away their earlier efforts, they STILL came in on schedule and under
budget.

General Dynamics faced EXACTLY those problems with F-16C/D development,
although they were using JOVIAL J73.  They had some limited experience with
JOVIAL J3B on F-16A/B, but nowhere near enough to be at critical mass.  They
also had to contract out development of the JOVIAL J73 compilers: there were
none in existence at the time the project started.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

John R. Strohm wrote:
> Boeing faced EXACTLY those problems on the 777 project.  In particular, the
> brake controller .......: even though they had to start late, and even
> though they had to train people from scratch, and even though they had to
> throw away their earlier efforts, they STILL came in on schedule and under
> budget.
> 
> General Dynamics faced EXACTLY those problems with F-16C/D development,
> although they were using JOVIAL J73.  They had some limited experience with
> JOVIAL J3B on F-16A/B, but nowhere near enough to be at critical mass.  They
> also had to contract out development of the JOVIAL J73 compilers: there were
> none in existence at the time the project started.

The naysayers had proclaimed the AN/BSY-2 project was
doomed because (among other reasons) of the learning curve
for Ada.  Five years later, folks were pointing to Ada
as the reason for the project's success

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Stefan Scholl]

On 2003-04-25 03:12:22, Russ wrote:
> FFP software development.  The bottomline is that in today's world, if
> you want to draw from the largest pool of talent, you better be
> programming in C, C++ or Java.  Call it inertia if you want. It

I wouldn't call one-language-only programmers talented. :-)

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On 24 Apr 2003 18:12:22 -0700, 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote:

>Let me follow up on my earlier post. Here is an excerpt from an email
>I recently received from a very competent and productive software
>engineer who works down the hall from me and who has great influence
>over our choice of language:

>Your continued obsession with Ada for purely academic reasons is a
>seemingly naive approach to real software development.

Your continued obsession with Ada appears to be more for practical,
safety and cost reasons!

>I have not seen any legitimate justification for switching to Ada.

It's hard to prove until you actually do it!

>Which feature of Ada critical to our **** development cannot be
>achieved with C/C++/Java?

Err - safety probably!

>There are several reasons why Ada is not practical.

No there isn't. There is only one reason why Ada can't be practical
and that is that you don't have the time to wait for, or the money to
pay for, a compiler to be produced that supports whatever unusual
processor you use. If a compiler exists for your processor there is no
reason why Ada isn't practical.

>First, there is no in-house large-scale Ada application development
>experience among the software developers or civil servants.  We can't
>wait around while 40 developers come up speed. Furthermore, i'll be
>blunt and say there was "little" in-house C++  experience when the
>**** was redesigned and we're still paying the price for that
>inexperience.

Interesting, and not surprising. If they had chosen Ada instead of C++
at the time he would probably be singing its praises!

>Second, the FAA does not use Ada for the rest of its
>FFP software development.

Means nothing to me!

>The bottomline is that in today's world, if
>you want to draw from the largest pool of talent, you better be
>programming in C, C++ or Java.  Call it inertia if you want. It
>doesn't matter really.

Nonsense. A talented software engineer will be able to program in
whatever language you ask him to. The only issue here is salary - a
young, inexperienced, but talented S/W Eng will choose to program in
the language that they perceive as being most financially rewarding.

>Ultimately, any truly critical Ada feature
>will eventually be added to C++ or Java.

While this is partially nonsense, the fact is that even if C++ and/or
Java had all of the features of Ada added, there is no way that the
amount of time and effort spent in getting those features *right* in
Ada will be done in C++ and especially Java! Java is a
flavour-of-the-month language - whatever feature is perceived to be
*nice* just gets added irrespective of the overall effect and
consistency in the language!


Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Anders Wirzenius]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:bebbba07.0304241712.698fbc85@posting.google.com...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0304230951.59468757@posting.google.com>...
> 

> First, there is no in-house large-scale Ada application development
> experience among the software developers or civil servants.  We can't
> wait around while 40 developers come up speed. Furthermore, i'll be
> blunt and say there was "little" in-house C++  experience when the
> **** was redesigned and we're still paying the price for that

How about eating the elefant piece by piece? Perhaps he can wait around 
while 2 developers come up speed? Perhaps he can afford some paying for 
2 developers inexperience in using Ada? That's roughly 5 per cent of the 
total of 40 developers. It is not more than what could be a later accepted 
fall behind of the project schedule.
There might also be a possibility to develop a small part of the system in
both C and Ada as two concurrent projects? And then do some safety and 
efficincy measures on the two versions (and skip the version with 
lower quality).

Anders

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Parish]

Anders Wirzenius wrote:

> "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:bebbba07.0304241712.698fbc85@posting.google.com...
>> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message
>> news:<bebbba07.0304230951.59468757@posting.google.com>...
>> 
> 
>> First, there is no in-house large-scale Ada application development
>> experience among the software developers or civil servants.  We can't
>> wait around while 40 developers come up speed. Furthermore, i'll be
>> blunt and say there was "little" in-house C++  experience when the
>> **** was redesigned and we're still paying the price for that
> 
> How about eating the elefant piece by piece? Perhaps he can wait around
> while 2 developers come up speed? Perhaps he can afford some paying for
> 2 developers inexperience in using Ada? That's roughly 5 per cent of the
> total of 40 developers. It is not more than what could be a later accepted
> fall behind of the project schedule.
> There might also be a possibility to develop a small part of the system in
> both C and Ada as two concurrent projects? And then do some safety and
> efficincy measures on the two versions (and skip the version with
> lower quality).
> 
> Anders
If I remember correctly, there's a few free GPS clients lying around with 
source code, and if my guess is correct, they'll be written in C or C++.

That's the baseline - now rewrite them in Ada and display the efficiency 
difference to said manager.  You should be able to fix up a workable - if 
elementary - TCAS from a GPS client, the network protocol and a good 
scientific library.

(Decomposition:
TCAS: ATNetwork socket; GPS client; Scientific library routines for 
geodesics (3d Trig) and Linear Programming (what is a collision avoidance 
system but a glorified Linear Programming problem, anyway?); a set of User 
IO for flight crew, ATC, other aircraft;
the AT network and GPS are data pipes; the network is IO while the GPS is 
Input; the scientific libraries are functions taking in data from the 
network socket and the GPS and spitting out flight paths according to the 
data input, and possibilities of collision and dangerous proximity; the 
User IO gives warning to the flight crew and sends it off to other aircraft 
and a record of the actions to the ATC.)

Now you've got a basis for a hard real-time benchmark to test against the 
C/C++/Java competition.

Have fun.

Wesley Parish

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

Russ wrote:
> We can't wait around while 40 developers come up speed.
> there was "little" in-house C++  experience and we're
 > still paying the price for that inexperience.

He has a point there. If you've got the same programmers
who screwed up because they tried to develop a system in
C++ without knowing C++, they'll screw up a system in Ada
because they don't know Ada. Obviously, your management
doesn't feel that it's necessary for programmers to be
expert in the language they use. Too bad for them, and for
you.

 > if you want to draw from the largest pool of talent,
 > you better be programming in C, C++ or Java.

The pool is large, but it's shallow, too. You have no ides
(or maybe you do) how many people claim to be expert in those
languages who barely know the first thing about them.

> Ultimately, any truly critical Ada feature will eventually
 > be added to C++ or Java.

Certainly not within the timeframe of the project, if ever.
And then you would be working with cutting-edge language
changes, which is a recipe for disaster for production use.

You're doomed. Sorry. Mind you, I think there's absolutely
nothing wrong with developing a large system in C or C++.
I don't even know Ada. But I'm not convinced that you're
working with people who actually know C++ well enough to
succeed

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Samuel Tardieu]

>> We can't wait around while 40 developers come up speed.  there was
>> "little" in-house C++ experience and we're still paying the price
>> for that inexperience.

Hyman> He has a point there.

I don't think so. The "point" assumes that what was to blame was the
insufficient knowledge of C++, and that this knowledge has not been
acquired. What if the problem was in fact C++ itself?

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> I don't think so. The "point" assumes that what was to blame was the
> insufficient knowledge of C++, and that this knowledge has not been
> acquired. What if the problem was in fact C++ itself?

Well, that's not what the e-mail said. It specifically blamed lack
of experience with the language, not the language itself. Since
neither of us was there, we have no evidence to gainsay the claim.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:46:01 -0400, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
wrote:

>Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>> I don't think so. The "point" assumes that what was to blame was the
>> insufficient knowledge of C++, and that this knowledge has not been
>> acquired. What if the problem was in fact C++ itself?
>
>Well, that's not what the e-mail said. It specifically blamed lack
>of experience with the language, not the language itself. Since
>neither of us was there, we have no evidence to gainsay the claim.

It is quite reasonable to hypothesise (as Sam has) that 'lack of
experience' is an subjective view. That may not be the real problem,
just the problem as seen by the person who wrote the original message.

The language itself, and more specifically the fact that it doesn't
explicitly provide mechanisms for programming concurrent, safe and
complicated systems (much of this needs to be provided by the
operating system or by non-standard compiler extensions in C++) could
be at least one of the major problems with this development.

Ada on the other hand has all this functionality built in to the
language in a standard manor (sic:-). What is also not addressed in
the original message is what experience the team did have prior to its
use of C++. If it had been something like Pascal, Modula-2 etc (i.e.
those languages that were similar to Ada) then moving to Ada could
have been a relatively straightforward transition however moving to
C++ could have been far more difficult.

John

Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Colin Paul Gloster]

In article <3eace266.980990@news.btclick.com>, John McCabe wrote:
"[..] What is also not addressed in
the original message is what experience the team did have prior to its
use of C++. If it had been something like Pascal, Modula-2 etc (i.e.
those languages that were similar to Ada) then moving to Ada could
have been a relatively straightforward transition however moving to
C++ could have been far more difficult."

The converse can also be true: being familiar with a similar language can
cause a problem when syntatically similar constructs in both have
different meanings, as moaned by a curly braces {} programmer on the main
email list of the Association of C & C++ Users in the last few months. For
example, doing a project now in Java and porting it later to C++ unaware
that C++ methods are not by default virtual.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John R. Strohm]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1051282861.155019@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
[ major snippage to get to the important point ]
> I don't even know Ada.

THANK YOU for this admission of ignorance.

I now know that I can safely ignore any and everything you say about Ada,
knowing that you have previously admitted to having no actual knowledge.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

John R. Strohm wrote:
> THANK YOU for this admission of ignorance.
> 
> I now know that I can safely ignore any and everything you say about Ada,
> knowing that you have previously admitted to having no actual knowledge.

Umm, yeah, whatever. I'm actually on the OP's side.
I wish he would be able to get Ada used on his project.
But from what he says, they embarked on a C++ project
without having staff who knew C++ well enough to use it,
are are still having fallout from that. I expect that
with that attitude, they would suffer the same problems
using Ada, because they would try to build an Ada project
using staff who didn't know Ada well enough.

Or is it your contention that even people who don't know
Ada can build a large successful project with it? If so,
I'll start right away!

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1051303356.875377@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> John R. Strohm wrote:
>> THANK YOU for this admission of ignorance.
>> 
>> I now know that I can safely ignore any and everything you say about Ada,
>> knowing that you have previously admitted to having no actual knowledge.
> 
> Umm, yeah, whatever. I'm actually on the OP's side.
> I wish he would be able to get Ada used on his project.
> But from what he says, they embarked on a C++ project
> without having staff who knew C++ well enough to use it,
> are are still having fallout from that. I expect that
> with that attitude, they would suffer the same problems
> using Ada, because they would try to build an Ada project
> using staff who didn't know Ada well enough.

As an Ada fan, perhaps I am happy that Ada is not allowed by such
a management structure.

> Or is it your contention that even people who don't know
> Ada can build a large successful project with it? If so,
> I'll start right away!

In general, no, but based on your overall remarks here you understand
the quality issues well enough that _you_ could probably do it.   But
if there is some C++ that is going to affect my safety, I would rather
it were written by you than by someone else.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John R. Strohm]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1051303356.875377@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> John R. Strohm wrote:
> > THANK YOU for this admission of ignorance.
> >
> > I now know that I can safely ignore any and everything you say about
Ada,
> > knowing that you have previously admitted to having no actual knowledge.
>
> Umm, yeah, whatever. I'm actually on the OP's side.
> I wish he would be able to get Ada used on his project.
> But from what he says, they embarked on a C++ project
> without having staff who knew C++ well enough to use it,
> are are still having fallout from that. I expect that
> with that attitude, they would suffer the same problems
> using Ada, because they would try to build an Ada project
> using staff who didn't know Ada well enough.

There are three key components of project success: competent management,
competent staff, and competent training.  It is really VERY difficult to
have a project failure if all three of these things are present.  Read
Robert Glass's classic book, "The Universal Elixir and Other Computing
Projects Which Failed".

> Or is it your contention that even people who don't know
> Ada can build a large successful project with it? If so,
> I'll start right away!

The brake subcontractor for the Boeing 777 did exactly that.  They started
behind the power curve, with no previous Ada experience.  They were already
well underway with their C implementation, figuring Boeing would give them a
waiver.  Instead, Boeing explained to them that they would either do the
project in Ada or Boeing would hire someone else who would.  They came in on
schedule, under budget, and thoroughly convinced that they'd been seriously
wrong in their opposition to Ada.

So, how soon are you going to start your Ada project?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Frode Tennebø]

On Saturday 26 April 2003 08:48 John R. Strohm wrote:

> There are three key components of project success: competent
> management,
> competent staff, and competent training.

Unfortuantely, the abundance of the former nullify the other two. :(
Generally speaking... ;-)

> The brake subcontractor for the Boeing 777 did exactly that.  They
> started
> behind the power curve, with no previous Ada experience.  They were
> already well underway with their C implementation, figuring Boeing
> would give them a
> waiver.  Instead, Boeing explained to them that they would either do
> the
> project in Ada or Boeing would hire someone else who would.  They came
> in on schedule, under budget, and thoroughly convinced that they'd
> been seriously wrong in their opposition to Ada.

Actually, I find this extremely interesting. It means that "incompetent"
programmers can actually produce better by switching from C to Ada
(provided the verification of the subsystem was accepted). Hence you
don't need "expert programmers" to produce qualtiy software, just the
right tool.

Has this been documented anywere? It seems to be a good success story.

 -Frode

-- 
^ Frode Tenneb� | email: frode@tennebo.com | Frode@IRC ^
|  with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer;  |

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John R. Strohm]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1979 bytes --]

"Frode Tenneb�" <frode@tennebo.com> wrote in message
news:fu0f8b.pir.ln@leia...
> On Saturday 26 April 2003 08:48 John R. Strohm wrote:
>
> > There are three key components of project success: competent
> > management,
> > competent staff, and competent training.
>
> Unfortuantely, the abundance of the former nullify the other two. :(
> Generally speaking... ;-)
>
> > The brake subcontractor for the Boeing 777 did exactly that.  They
> > started
> > behind the power curve, with no previous Ada experience.  They were
> > already well underway with their C implementation, figuring Boeing
> > would give them a
> > waiver.  Instead, Boeing explained to them that they would either do
> > the
> > project in Ada or Boeing would hire someone else who would.  They came
> > in on schedule, under budget, and thoroughly convinced that they'd
> > been seriously wrong in their opposition to Ada.
>
> Actually, I find this extremely interesting. It means that "incompetent"
> programmers can actually produce better by switching from C to Ada
> (provided the verification of the subsystem was accepted). Hence you
> don't need "expert programmers" to produce qualtiy software, just the
> right tool.

Not quite.  The brake contractor had competent engineers; they just didn't
have anyone with any Ada experience.  They had to hit the ground running and
learn fast.  And they did.  They EXPECTED to crash and burn, but they
figured they would be able to blame the crash-and-burn on Ada.  They were
pleasantly surprised when they succeeded instead.

Phil Crosby (of "Quality is Free" fame) once tried to argue with his CEO
when the CEO wanted him to deliver zero-defect products.  The CEO told him,
just as Boeing told the brake subcontractor, "If you can't do it, I'll find
someone who can!"  Phil said his reaction was "Oh, well, when you put it
THAT way..."

> Has this been documented anywere? It seems to be a good success story.

Start at http://www.adaic.com (I think).

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:24:14 +0200, Frode =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tenneb=F8?=
<frode@tennebo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday 26 April 2003 08:48 John R. Strohm wrote:
>
>> There are three key components of project success: competent
>> management,
>> competent staff, and competent training.
>
>Unfortuantely, the abundance of the former nullify the other two. :(
>Generally speaking... ;-)

Abundance? Really?

>> The brake subcontractor for the Boeing 777 did exactly that.  They

<..snip..>

>Actually, I find this extremely interesting. It means that "incompetent"

No one mentioned anything here about incompetent programmers. Lack of
experience in a language doesn't make someone an incompetent
programmer!



Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Frode Tennebø]

On Monday 28 April 2003 10:20 John McCabe wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:24:14 +0200, Frode =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tenneb=F8?=
> <frode@tennebo.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Saturday 26 April 2003 08:48 John R. Strohm wrote:
>>
>>> There are three key components of project success: competent
>>> management,
>>> competent staff, and competent training.
>>
>>Unfortuantely, the abundance of the former nullify the other two. :(
>>Generally speaking... ;-)
> 
> Abundance? Really?

Err..no - the inverse: shortage *bonk*. I could claim irony, but this
was just a short-circuit. :/

>>Actually, I find this extremely interesting. It means that
>>"incompetent"
> 
> No one mentioned anything here about incompetent programmers. Lack of
> experience in a language doesn't make someone an incompetent
> programmer!

I didn't actually _mean_ incompetent, hence the quotes. There was some
talk about _competent_ staff so I used a reflexive pointer to that
remark. Sorry about the confusion.

 -Frode

-- 
^ Frode Tenneb� | email: frode@tennebo.com | Frode@IRC ^
|  with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer;  |

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:16:55 +0200, Frode =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tenneb=F8?=
<frode@tennebo.com> wrote:

>>>Unfortuantely, the abundance of the former nullify the other two. :(
>>>Generally speaking... ;-)
>> 
>> Abundance? Really?
>
>Err..no - the inverse: shortage *bonk*. I could claim irony, but this
>was just a short-circuit. :/

I knew what you meant :-) Couldn't think of the best word for the
opposite myself though! 'Scarcity' is probably quite close.

>>>Actually, I find this extremely interesting. It means that
>>>"incompetent"
>> 
>> No one mentioned anything here about incompetent programmers. Lack of
>> experience in a language doesn't make someone an incompetent
>> programmer!
>
>I didn't actually _mean_ incompetent, hence the quotes. There was some
>talk about _competent_ staff so I used a reflexive pointer to that
>remark. Sorry about the confusion.

Ok - fair enough.

Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[AG]

"John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:434D6BE07B88DDF3.14FA79DE87C7C338.160D352186C8E9CD@lp.airnews.net...
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1051282861.155019@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> [ major snippage to get to the important point ]
> > I don't even know Ada.
>
> THANK YOU for this admission of ignorance.
>
> I now know that I can safely ignore any and everything you say about Ada,
> knowing that you have previously admitted to having no actual knowledge.

I think that was a bit rash. Considering the amount of useful
discussion Hyman provides it's a little bit difficult to blame
him of ignorance (of all things). Ever heard of sarcasm?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

AG wrote:
> I think that was a bit rash. Considering the amount of useful
> discussion Hyman provides it's a little bit difficult to blame
> him of ignorance (of all things). Ever heard of sarcasm?

Thanks for the defense. It's OK, though. As the loyal opposition,
I expect a few flames every now and then :-)

I'm actually half-lying when I claim not to know Ada. Just reading
c.l.a, I've picked up a fair smattering of the language, and I've
read a little in Barnes. At some point, I really should start writing
a few small utilities in Ada to get a feel for it's day-to-day use.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> read a little in Barnes. At some point, I really should start writing
> a few small utilities in Ada to get a feel for it's day-to-day use.

Yes you should :-) Perhaps it even improves your C++ by getting an Ada
perspective too :-)

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> He has a point there. If you've got the same programmers
> who screwed up because they tried to develop a system in
> C++ without knowing C++, they'll screw up a system in Ada
> because they don't know Ada. Obviously, your management
> doesn't feel that it's necessary for programmers to be
> expert in the language they use. Too bad for them, and for
> you.

I'd put it slightly differently: the same programmers
who screwed up because they tried to develop a system in
a language they weren't capable of learning, will
screw up a system in any language for the same reason.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

Wesley Groleau wrote:
> I'd put it slightly differently: the same programmers
> who screwed up because they tried to develop a system in
> a language they weren't capable of learning, will
> screw up a system in any language for the same reason.

It's not really incapability of learning. It's a matter of
trying to use a language with only a cursory understanding
of it, instead of a deep one. When you do that, you're going
to fail, or at least "succeed badly", because you will fail
to use the features of the language to their best advantage.
It's the old concept of being able to code Fortran in any
language. Think of how many posts in this newsgroup criticize
Ada newbies for trying to transliterate C into Ada instead of
learning how things should be done properly in Ada. Now imagine
them actually going off to build a system in that style.

Without an expert in Ada around to supervise the training, the
people learning Ada aren't going to know when they've learned
enough about the language to use it properly.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> It's not really incapability of learning. It's a matter of
> trying to use a language with only a cursory understanding
> of it, instead of a deep one. When you do that, you're going
> to fail, or at least "succeed badly", because you will fail
> to use the features of the language to their best advantage.
> It's the old concept of being able to code Fortran in any
> language. Think of how many posts in this newsgroup criticize
> Ada newbies for trying to transliterate C into Ada instead of
> learning how things should be done properly in Ada. Now imagine
> them actually going off to build a system in that style.
> 
> Without an expert in Ada around to supervise the training, the
> people learning Ada aren't going to know when they've learned
> enough about the language to use it properly.

Huh? A good programmer isn't a programmer who is good in Language X, but
one who understands programming.

One that knows C++/VB/HTML well need not be good at programming at all.

At any rate C++ must be one of the worste programming language to be
good at as it has so many side effects and perculiarties that you need
to read several books to learn how to avoid its pitfalls etc...

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>Without an expert in Ada around to supervise the training, the
>>people learning Ada aren't going to know when they've learned
>>enough about the language to use it properly.

There were few Ada experts available when some
of the successful projects started.

> At any rate C++ must be one of the worste programming language to be
> good at as it has so many side effects and perculiarties that you need
> to read several books to learn how to avoid its pitfalls etc...

I read more than half of "C Traps and Pitfalls"
NONE of what I read could happen in Ada.

(One of them would never happen in C either,
because not even the worst C programmer would
have written something that unreadable--and not
even the best would have been able to read it
without some scratch paper to help take it apart.)

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John R. Strohm]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ILWqa.15825$J27.12065@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Wesley Groleau wrote:
> > I'd put it slightly differently: the same programmers
> > who screwed up because they tried to develop a system in
> > a language they weren't capable of learning, will
> > screw up a system in any language for the same reason.
>
> It's not really incapability of learning. It's a matter of
> trying to use a language with only a cursory understanding
> of it, instead of a deep one. When you do that, you're going
> to fail, or at least "succeed badly", because you will fail
> to use the features of the language to their best advantage.
> It's the old concept of being able to code Fortran in any
> language. Think of how many posts in this newsgroup criticize
> Ada newbies for trying to transliterate C into Ada instead of
> learning how things should be done properly in Ada. Now imagine
> them actually going off to build a system in that style.
>
> Without an expert in Ada around to supervise the training, the
> people learning Ada aren't going to know when they've learned
> enough about the language to use it properly.

Yes and no.

About 90% of programming in Ada is pretty much the same as programming in
any other decent language.  Most of the lines in Ada AREN'T rep specs or
tasking calls or instantiating generics.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

John R. Strohm wrote:
> About 90% of programming in Ada is pretty much the same as programming in
> any other decent language.  Most of the lines in Ada AREN'T rep specs or
> tasking calls or instantiating generics.

But there's also string handling, and OO, and interfacing with C,
and dynamically sized arrays, and streaming, and visibility, and
use clauses, and overloading, and who knows what else.

When people set out to design a software system in Ada, and they
don't know Ada throughly and deeply, how likely is it that the
design will be "good Ada", as opposed to a bastard version of
the language that they do know?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> When people set out to design a software system in Ada, and they
> don't know Ada throughly and deeply, how likely is it that the
> design will be "good Ada", as opposed to a bastard version of
> the language that they do know?

When people set out to design a software system in C++, and they
don't know C++ throughly and deeply, how likely is it that the design
will be "good C++" [*], as opposed to a bastard version of the language
that they do know?

My answer is that I believe they will find it easier to make a good
design in Ada as opposed to C++


[*] A mindboggling concept, but for the sake of this exercise.
-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> When people set out to design a software system in C++, and they
> don't know C++ throughly and deeply, how likely is it that the design
> will be "good C++" [*], as opposed to a bastard version of the language
> that they do know?

Well, yes, that's my point. I'm in favor of having a deep understanding
of a language before I go off and build a large system with it.

> My answer is that I believe they will find it easier to make a good
> design in Ada as opposed to C++

Probably so, but will it look anything like what an experienced
Ada practitioner would have done?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Well, yes, that's my point. I'm in favor of having a deep understanding
> of a language before I go off and build a large system with it.

IMHO this is truer for C++ as it has so many quirks and bogs to stay
clear of. C and C++ expect the programmer not to do any mistakes, which
is not exactly what you may expect no matter how well the person is or
how extensive his knowledge of the language is.

> Probably so, but will it look anything like what an experienced
> Ada practitioner would have done?

Your point here being? My question is how many of the so called C++
programmers that are so readily available are able to program a big
system in C++?

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> C++

I don't why you keep harping on C++. I'm not talking
about C++, I'm talking about whether you can take
programmers who don't know Ada and have them produce
a well-designed system in Ada before they acquire a
deep and thorough understanding of the language.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Steve]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1051623300.735620@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> > C++
>
> I don't why you keep harping on C++. I'm not talking
> about C++, I'm talking about whether you can take
> programmers who don't know Ada and have them produce
> a well-designed system in Ada before they acquire a
> deep and thorough understanding of the language.

Yes.

Will the design improve with a more thorough understanding of the language?

Yes.

Next question?

Steve
(The Duck)
P.S. I'll be away from the newsgroup for a few days.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> I don't why you keep harping on C++. I'm not talking
> about C++, I'm talking about whether you can take
> programmers who don't know Ada and have them produce
> a well-designed system in Ada before they acquire a
> deep and thorough understanding of the language.

It is my experience that there is at least one aspect of Ada, which it 
is hard (for me) to explain to people in a way that is easy to 
understand: tagged types

Except for that, I am actually amazed how easy it is for people with a 
bit of programming experience behind them to get up to speed with 
programming in Ada.

Jacob
-- 
"I'm going as a barrel of toxic waste!"

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> Preben Randhol wrote:
> > C++
> 
> I don't why you keep harping on C++. I'm not talking
> about C++, I'm talking about whether you can take
> programmers who don't know Ada and have them produce
> a well-designed system in Ada before they acquire a
> deep and thorough understanding of the language.
> 

In my experience, yes. But that's more a function of sound design than
choice of language. The project I'm thinking of was originally going
to be implemented in C, but the customer wanted us to switch to Ada
after the design was finished. Design was done mostly in SDL, btw.
The programmers got a crash course in Ada, and went at it, using a
subset which was roughly equivalent to Pascal plus generic
packages. Tasks were not used because of limitations in the DBMS we
were interfacing to.  We could certainly have used more of Ada, but
given the time constraints and the existing design, it seemed sensible
to stick to a limited subset.

The system was the first ATCCIS demonstration facility, btw.

-- 
Ole-Hj. Kristensen

******************************************************************************
* You cannot consistently believe this sentence.
******************************************************************************

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Jerry Petrey]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Preben Randhol wrote:
> > C++
>
> I don't why you keep harping on C++. I'm not talking
> about C++, I'm talking about whether you can take
> programmers who don't know Ada and have them produce
> a well-designed system in Ada before they acquire a
> deep and thorough understanding of the language.

Hyman,

I understand your point.  I think some of the worst code I have ever seen has
been Ada written by people who still think in their old language (Fortran, C,
etc.) and who have not taken (or been given) the time to learn Ada properly.
Companies rarely devote much to training their people in a new language and
unfortunately, many software engineers also don�t devote much to this effort.
The attitude is that if you know how to program in one language, you can learn
how to use another with little effort.  While this may be true, I contend that
you won�t be writing the best (and most maintainable) code unless to devote
some serious effort in learning to �think� in the new language.  This is true
in any language, I believe, which is probably what Preben was trying to say
when he challenged you about your question.  That said, I still feel that Ada
offers a great advantage over most other languages in that even code written
by under trained newcomers is still more maintainable and the strong typing
and compiler checking helps these programmers to become more proficient.

Some of the things that would make a huge improvement in software quality,
safety and maintainability would be:

1. Companies would allow developers to expend the extensive effort required to
become true craftsmen in the language chosen.
2. Managers would manage.  Experienced developers would have more control over
the project.
3. A good process would be followed without exceptions.
4. Thorough testing would be done.
5. The first attempt on a new application (especially by a team inexperienced
with the language) would be treated as a learning experience, discarded and
rewritten.
6. The proper tools would be acquired and kept up to date.

Since these things are rarely done, I think the advantages of Ada gives it an
edge in the software development process and we need every bit of help
possible because most projects are so poorly managed and have time and budget
constraints.

Jerry
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Jerry Petrey
-- Senior Principal Systems Engineer - Navigation (GPS/INS), Guidance, &
Control
-- Raytheon Missile Systems          - Member Team Ada & Team Forth
-- NOTE: please remove <NOSPAM> in email address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:15:38 -0700, Jerry Petrey
<"jdpetrey<NOSPAM>"@raytheon.com> wrote:

>Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> > C++
>>
>> I don't why you keep harping on C++. I'm not talking
>> about C++, I'm talking about whether you can take
>> programmers who don't know Ada and have them produce
>> a well-designed system in Ada before they acquire a
>> deep and thorough understanding of the language.
>
>Hyman,
>
>I understand your point.  I think some of the worst code I have ever seen has
>been Ada written by people who still think in their old language (Fortran, C,
>etc.) and who have not taken (or been given) the time to learn Ada properly.

You mean where all discrete variables are integers to avoid explicit
type conversion etc? Lovely!



Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

>>I understand your point.  I think some of the worst code I have ever seen has
>>been Ada written by people who still think in their old language (Fortran, C,
>>etc.) and who have not taken (or been given) the time to learn Ada properly.
> 
> You mean where all discrete variables are integers to avoid explicit
> type conversion etc? Lovely!

Or lists of integer constants instead of enumerated types....

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Marc A. Criley]

john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) wrote in message news:<3eaf82fb.1131196@news.btclick.com>...

> You mean where all discrete variables are integers to avoid explicit
> type conversion etc? Lovely!

Or _all_ numeric "types" were subtypes of one of three defined numeric
types: Integer_8, Integer_16, or Integer_32.

And there was the other project were subtypes were banned, and all
numeric types had to be derived from one of three ... well, you know
where this is going...

(Hey, I just inherited the code and had to get it working!)

Marc A. Criley

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> about C++, I'm talking about whether you can take
> programmers who don't know Ada and have them produce
> a well-designed system in Ada before they acquire a
> deep and thorough understanding of the language.

Yes.  If you can produce a well-designed system
in any procedural language, then you can do it
in any other procedural language.

Unless you define "well-designed" as
"using all the language features in the most effective manner."

The fact that "decent" does not equal "best"
doesn't mean that is does equal "terrible"

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Mike Silva]

18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0304241712.698fbc85@posting.google.com>...
> 
> Your continued obsession with Ada for purely academic reasons is a
> seemingly naive approach to real software development.

So when you argue for Ada on technical grounds it's obsessing, and
when he rejects (not, apparently, refutes) your arguments he's being
sophisticated (the opposite of naive?).

> I have not
> seen any legitimate justification for switching to Ada.

So he *has* refuted the various studies and white papers you've
pointed him to?

> Which feature
> of Ada critical to our **** development cannot be achieved with
> C/C++/Java?

The old Turing argument.  We can do anything in any language!

>  There are several reasons why Ada is not practical. 
> First, there is no in-house large-scale Ada application development
> experience among the software developers or civil servants.  We can't
> wait around while 40 developers come up speed. Furthermore, i'll be
> blunt and say there was "little" in-house C++  experience when the
> **** was redesigned and we're still paying the price for that
> inexperience.  Second, the FAA does not use Ada for the rest of its
> FFP software development.  The bottomline is that in today's world, if
> you want to draw from the largest pool of talent, you better be
> programming in C, C++ or Java.

Well, which is it -- are they going to retrain their current
developers or hire new ones?  BTW, I imagine that the *percentage* of
C/C++/Java developers who could easily step into an ATC project is a
lot lower than the percentage of Ada developers who could easily do
so.  Lots less reading of resumes and interviewing only to end up at
don't-call-us-we'll-call-you.

> Call it inertia if you want. It
> doesn't matter really.  Ultimately, any truly critical Ada feature
> will eventually be added to C++ or Java.

This is the best yet!  They don't have time to train their developers,
but they have time to wait for truly critical features to be added to
C++ or Java!

Oh, and there's a really big talent pool of VB programmers out there. 
Any truly critical Ada feature will eventually get added to VB, right?

I think the best you could hope for is to do a part of the project in
Ada and have great success while the rest of the project founders. :-/

Mike

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John R. Strohm]

"Mike Silva" <snarflemike@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20619edc.0304250946.204a7ae1@posting.google.com...
> I think the best you could hope for is to do a part of the project in
> Ada and have great success while the rest of the project founders. :-/

Russ, Mike has the beginnings of a really good idea here, if you can find a
sympathetic, smart senior manager.

Your firm probably has some internal R&D budget laying around.  Take a good
look at the upcoming air traffic management project, find a chunk that can
be relatively easily carved out, that IS fairly central, not peripherally
trivial.  Put together a proposal package, containing the various success
studies from Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, and elsewhere, along with the
down-the-hall guy's diatribe, and some cost estimates, and go pitch a quiet,
back hallway IR&D, to FIND OUT whether Ada in fact is as good as Boeing and
Pratt say it is.  Take the same metrics as the mainstream guys are going to
take, track the same deliverables, and then, when the dust settles, see who
got thar fustest with the mostest, to paraphase someone or other from the
American Revolution.

Work from the same requirements specifications and interface control
documents as the C/C++/Java folks.  You want to demonstrate something that
will plug-and-play with their system.

Admit up front that there will be some training costs, but these other
studies (have them in your hands) show that it won't be that bad.

Play up the quality/reliability/maintainability stuff.  Note in passing that
the Ada programmers on the market tend to be MUCH more accustomed to working
in high-reliability applications than the typical C++ programmers.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

>>Which feature
>>of Ada critical to our **** development cannot be achieved with
>>C/C++/Java?

Which feature of C/C++/Java critical to our **** development cannot be 
achieved with assembly language?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Hyman Rosen]

Wesley Groleau wrote:
> Which feature of C/C++/Java critical to our **** development cannot be 
> achieved with assembly language?

For Ada and C++, the answer is "reduction in the number of lines of
code which need to be typed in through use of templates/generics".

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

>> Which feature of C/C++/Java critical to our **** development cannot be 
>> achieved with assembly language?
> 
> For Ada and C++, the answer is "reduction in the number of lines of
> code which need to be typed in through use of templates/generics".

Isn't there already an abundance of assemblers
with very sophisticated macro features?

Anyway, my comment was a sarcastic response to an equally asinine

  "Which feature of Ada critical to our **** development cannot be
   achieved with C/C++/Java?"

The answer to both is obviously "None" -- until you
start adding schedule and quality constraints.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Mike Silva]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<sFWqa.15763$J27.229@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> Wesley Groleau wrote:
> > Which feature of C/C++/Java critical to our **** development cannot be 
> > achieved with assembly language?
> 
> For Ada and C++, the answer is "reduction in the number of lines of
> code which need to be typed in through use of templates/generics".

But surely "reduction in the number of lines typed in" is not *critical* to ****?!

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Mike Silva wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<sFWqa.15763$J27.229@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
>> Wesley Groleau wrote:
>> > Which feature of C/C++/Java critical to our **** development cannot be 
>> > achieved with assembly language?
>> 
>> For Ada and C++, the answer is "reduction in the number of lines of
>> code which need to be typed in through use of templates/generics".
> 
> But surely "reduction in the number of lines typed in" is not *critical* to ****?!

Increase in turnout is.

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Richard Riehle]

Russ wrote:

> Let me follow up on my earlier post. Here is an excerpt from an email
> I recently received from a very competent and productive software
> engineer who works down the hall from me and who has great influence
> over our choice of language:
>
> Your continued obsession with Ada for purely academic reasons is a
> seemingly naive approach to real software development.  I have not
> seen any legitimate justification for switching to Ada.

I hate it when well-intentioned people from various religious
organizations knock on my door intent on saving my soul.  It
annoys me to no end when someone hawking health foods and
vitamin supplements dominates the conversation with sermons
on the virtue of  Vitamin Q5 or some such.

We all have the experience of some evangelist, who, for whatever
cause, product, or idea, intrudes upon our comfort determined
to improve us in spite of our inherent reluctance to be improved.

It is not difficult for me to imagine an exasperated programming
manager leveling the charges quoted in Russ' email.   "He convinced
against his will, is of the same opinion still."

The most successful salespeople have learned over time that their
job is over eighty percent listening.   Even when they are required
to show or tell, they are still listening.   The best sales pitch is a
conversation, not a sermon.

All too often, we (including me) become so eager to share  our
new discoveries with someone else that we let our exuberance
obscure our judgement.   This is not unique to religion, marital
aids, or hobbies.   In the programming community we encounter
born-again Javaphiles,  C++  devotees who have been exposed
to revelation from some deity of software,  the charismatic
church of the Eiffel, the serenity of Zen Ruby, and the gift of
the daughters of Zeus, Ada.

We cannot expect everyone to share in our personal epiphany, even
if it is clearly for their own good, will bring them eternal joy, or
free their blighted toenails from the unsightly discoloration that
once threatened to lead us into a life of loneliness and despair.

Those who are bullied into using Ada resent Ada.  The resentment
strikes at Ada, but it is really aimed at the bullies.   In my experience,
those who use Ada successfully, and there are lots of people who
do, persuade themselves of its benefits.   Those who are unable to
use any language well, will blame Ada.   Those who insist that Ada
be exactly like the language they just finished using elsewhere, will
never be satisfied.

If you can use Ada yourself, and produce quality software with it,
people will notice.   This happened for me many years ago when I
was consulting to a group that was using C/C++.   I wrote a little
utility program in Ada that worked really well.  "What did you
write that in?"    I replied, "Ada."    It did not persuade the entire
team to convert suddenly to Ada, but it did establish a new level
of respect for Ada that had been previously absent.

I suppose this is a lot like the advice given to aspiring fiction
writers:  "Show, don't tell."    It is the rare programmer who
will sit quietly and listen to a lecture on how great a new
programming language is.    Almost every programmer will
get excited on seeing a new piece of software that does something
in an interesting way.   And they will almost always be interested
in how that software was created.   Show.  Don't tell.

Richard Riehle

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 09:18:29 -0700, Richard Riehle
<richard@adaworks.com> wrote:

>Those who are bullied into using Ada resent Ada.  The resentment
>strikes at Ada, but it is really aimed at the bullies.   In my experience,
>those who use Ada successfully, and there are lots of people who
>do, persuade themselves of its benefits.

But then there are people like me who are 'bullied' into Ada, resent
it, then end up using it successfully and see the light!

My 'blinding flash' was being able to write a simple little utility,
compile it on SunOS, have it run correctly (admittedly on the second
attempt), then compile and run the same source code on a PC and have
it run correctly! Until then I was very sceptical. I knew the utility
was needed on SunOS and PC and the only compilers we had for both
machines were Ada ones so it had to be Ada.


Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Steve]

"John McCabe" <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3eace5e8.1878551@news.btclick.com...
[snip]
> My 'blinding flash' was being able to write a simple little utility,
> compile it on SunOS, have it run correctly (admittedly on the second
> attempt), then compile and run the same source code on a PC and have
> it run correctly! Until then I was very sceptical. I knew the utility
> was needed on SunOS and PC and the only compilers we had for both
> machines were Ada ones so it had to be Ada.

This reminds me of a discussion I was having with a C++ programmer about
porting a C++ application.  He said that porting their sizable C++
application only took a few weeks.  He thought this was pretty good.  As I
told him, I ported an Ada application of similar size, it took a few hours
(I had to re-write the interface to sockets from Win32 to Linux).

Steve
(The Duck)

>
> Best Regards
> John McCabe
>
> To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Russ wrote:
  
"I work for a US government lab that does extensive work in air traffic
management (ATM). We will have major input into the future of ATM in
the US. As some of you may recall, I have a problem with some of Ada's
syntax, but I am nevertheless convinced that Ada is fundamentally
solid and is the right choice for the kind of software we develop and
will develop in the future.

Unfortunately, however, none of my colleagues is even willing to
consider using Ada. It's considered a "non-starter." C, C++, and Java
are the only languages considered. Ada wasn't even on the radar screen
until I brought it up. Also, I get the impression that professors who
study safety-critical systems are mostly using Java. "Real-time Java"
is gaining major momentum, and I fear that it could crush Ada.

I have the privledge of working with top experts in the world on
"revolutionary" new ATM system architectures. I ocassionally try to
sell them on Ada, but my efforts are starting to become a sort of
joke. Some of them think I am "obsessed" with Ada, and none of them
seems to think the choice of language is of fundamental importance
anyway. It's an "implementation detail" as far as most of the managers
are concerned."

and

"Let me follow up on my earlier post. Here is an excerpt from an email
I recently received from a very competent and productive software
engineer who works down the hall from me and who has great influence
over our choice of language:

Your continued obsession with Ada for purely academic reasons is a
seemingly naive approach to real software development.  I have not
seen any legitimate justification for switching to Ada.  Which feature
of Ada critical to our **** development cannot be achieved with
C/C++/Java?  There are several reasons why Ada is not practical. 
[..]"

Of those people who work as subcontractors to the European Space
Agency, two of the most ardent supporters of Java and detractors of Ada
(namely Alessandro Pasetti -- who unlike most people whose first choice 
is not Ada, he does actually understand Ada 83 and Ada 95 and profiles
very well and has actually given me valuable support in an Ada project --
of P & P Software ( HTTP://WWW.PnP-Software.com/ ) and Erik Aad Visser of
Computer Hardware Een Embedded Software Systems
( HTTP://WWW.CHESS.NL/chess_alg.php?language=english )) said at the DAta
Systems In Aerospace ( HTTP://WWW.Eurospace.org/dasia.html ) conference
last year that they expect it would be nearly as late at 2007 before there
would be a Java implementation of high enough reliability to use in space
(in orbit and unmanned).

As far as the language chosen not being a fundamental detail and only
being an implementation issue is concerned, there are actually flexibility
benefits or penalties in choosing between different programming languages.

Regards,
Colin Paul Gloster

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On 29 Apr 2003 18:33:56 GMT, Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul
Gloster) wrote:

>Of those people who work as subcontractors to the European Space
>Agency, two of the most ardent supporters of Java and detractors of Ada
>(namely Alessandro Pasetti -- who unlike most people whose first choice 
>is not Ada, he does actually understand Ada 83 and Ada 95 and profiles
>very well and has actually given me valuable support in an Ada project --
>of P & P Software ( HTTP://WWW.PnP-Software.com/ ) and Erik Aad Visser of
>Computer Hardware Een Embedded Software Systems
>( HTTP://WWW.CHESS.NL/chess_alg.php?language=english ))

I hope they were happy to be named here!

>said at the DAta
>Systems In Aerospace ( HTTP://WWW.Eurospace.org/dasia.html ) conference
>last year that they expect it would be nearly as late at 2007 before there
>would be a Java implementation of high enough reliability to use in space
>(in orbit and unmanned).

As a matter of interest, who is carrying out the implementation of
High-Rel Java? Is it Sun? For what it's worth (although this may have
changed) the license on the Java SDK explicitly forbade the use of
Java on mission or safety critical systems. It's been fairly clear for
what purpose Java was originally developed, and I see that as an issue
for future High-Rel development.

>As far as the language chosen not being a fundamental detail and only
>being an implementation issue is concerned, there are actually flexibility
>benefits or penalties in choosing between different programming languages.

Of course - some languages are better suited to some tasks than
others. Java is well suited to little boys' toys (e.g. STBs, phones
etc), and Ada is well suited to big boys' toys (e.g. aircraft, trains,
spacecraft etc) :-)

Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Colin Paul Gloster]

In article <3eaf83a9.1305306@news.btclick.com>, John McCabe wrote:

"I hope they were happy to be named here!"

They have published their views and announced them in person too.
  
"As a matter of interest, who is carrying out the implementation of
High-Rel Java?"

There are two vendors, and there are two rival realtime Java consortiums.

"Is it Sun?"

They are not Sun.

"For what it's worth [..] the license on the Java SDK explicitly forbade
the use of Java on mission or safety critical systems. [..]"

Yes. An explicit example given in a Netscape Navigator license forbade it
for use on the same workstation as one being used in air traffic
management. As for Java, I do not remember if that exact example was also
given.

"(although this may have changed)"

Highly unlikely.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Simon Wright]

18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:

>       Some of them think I am "obsessed" with Ada, and none of them
> seems to think the choice of language is of fundamental importance
> anyway. It's an "implementation detail" as far as most of the
> managers are concerned.

In some senses it is, or at least could be.

You will probably model your application requirements in some
high-level way (UML springs to mind), with translation rules written
to govern how the model is to be converted to code.

Those rules may be implemented by software (in which case you can have
your very best C++ guys work on it, and it doesn't much matter that
most of your people don't know C++ because to them it's just a
high-level assembler) or by developers, in which case you probably
need all the help you can get from language, tools and process.

Personally I'd rather do the automated translation to Ada; every
little helps.

RE: Ada in Iraq

[Robert C. Leif]

It might give us good publicity! The present success of military technology
has good connotations for decision makers. The compliment of this question
is what languages were used for those very distressing occasions when the
coalition hit the wrong targets?
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Preben Randhol [mailto:randhol+news@pvv.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 3:52 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org

Russ wrote:
> I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
> software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
> war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? 

Why?

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

RE: Ada in Iraq

[Bernd Specht]

"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in
news:mailman.2.1051113138.13478.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org: 

> It might give us good publicity! The present success of military
> technology has good connotations for decision makers. The compliment of
> this question is what languages were used for those very distressing
> occasions when the coalition hit the wrong targets?
> Bob Leif

Well, I can hear people say: "Ada causes friendly fire" :-(

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> It might give us good publicity! The present success of military technology
> has good connotations for decision makers. The compliment of this question
> is what languages were used for those very distressing occasions when the
> coalition hit the wrong targets?

You mean the rockets that hit Iran was programmed in a different
language than those hitting Bagdad?


-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

RE: Ada in Iraq

[Robert C. Leif]

Quite possibly. There could have been a software upgrade or a downgrade to a
C dialect.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Preben Randhol [mailto:randhol+news@pvv.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:06 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> It might give us good publicity! The present success of military
technology
> has good connotations for decision makers. The compliment of this question
> is what languages were used for those very distressing occasions when the
> coalition hit the wrong targets?

You mean the rockets that hit Iran was programmed in a different
language than those hitting Bagdad?


-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Stefan Scholl]

On 2003-04-23 17:51:15, Robert C. Leif wrote:

> It might give us good publicity! The present success of military technology

Not in every country.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Stefan Scholl wrote:
> On 2003-04-23 17:51:15, Robert C. Leif wrote:
> 
>> It might give us good publicity! The present success of military technology
> 
> Not in every country.

Nor every person. Trying to "sell" a computer language to civilians by
pointing to the navigation system in rockets that is used to kill people
is a non-starter.

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

RE: Ada in Iraq

[Robert C. Leif]

I can cite one counter example, myself. Having seen my graduate students go
off to the Vietnam War, I was and am still not enthused about military
action. However, the thought of applying an excellent technology that was
developed by the DoD, Ada, to detect cancer cells was very appealing.
Prejudice against a technology because of its source is stupid, just like
most prejudice.
 
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Preben Randhol [mailto:randhol+news@pvv.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:39 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org

Stefan Scholl wrote:
> On 2003-04-23 17:51:15, Robert C. Leif wrote:
> 
>> It might give us good publicity! The present success of military
technology
> 
> Not in every country.

Nor every person. Trying to "sell" a computer language to civilians by
pointing to the navigation system in rockets that is used to kill people
is a non-starter.

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> I can cite one counter example, myself. Having seen my graduate students go
> off to the Vietnam War, I was and am still not enthused about military
> action. However, the thought of applying an excellent technology that was
> developed by the DoD, Ada, to detect cancer cells was very appealing.
> Prejudice against a technology because of its source is stupid, just like
> most prejudice.

You are talking about something else here. I have never had any problems
with Ada being funded by DoD. What I don't think will promote Ada is to
talk about the usage of it in bombs and similar. Try saying "We only
killed about 2000-3000 civilians because we used rockets programmed in
language X" It comes out wrong in any context with civilians IMHO.

Emphasis on the usage in planes, trains, air-traffic controls etc.. on
the other hand...

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Jerry Petrey]

Preben Randhol wrote:

> Robert C. Leif wrote:
> > I can cite one counter example, myself. Having seen my graduate students go
> > off to the Vietnam War, I was and am still not enthused about military
> > action. However, the thought of applying an excellent technology that was
> > developed by the DoD, Ada, to detect cancer cells was very appealing.
> > Prejudice against a technology because of its source is stupid, just like
> > most prejudice.
>
> You are talking about something else here. I have never had any problems
> with Ada being funded by DoD. What I don't think will promote Ada is to
> talk about the usage of it in bombs and similar. Try saying "We only
> killed about 2000-3000 civilians because we used rockets programmed in
> language X" It comes out wrong in any context with civilians IMHO.
>
> Emphasis on the usage in planes, trains, air-traffic controls etc.. on
> the other hand...
>
> --
> Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

We certainly don�t want to kill innocent civilians in a war, which is why we
build smart weapons to minimize these unnecessary losses.  However, nothing is
perfect � there are always unexpected casualties in a war.  No one builds
airliners to crash and kill civilians either but it happens.  We try to minimize
it but it still happens.  Of course there are plenty of idiots in the world that
have no problem using an airliner full of civilians as a weapon.  There are
ruthless dictators like Saddam who have no problem torturing and killing his own
people by the thousands, or his son who uses his penis for a weapon of torture.
I, for one, am proud to be making the weapons that help rid the world of such
trash.  I'm proud to be from a country with the guts to stand up against such
people rather than burying their heads in the sand and talking about �peace and
love� while the murderers continue their sprees.  We are not perfect but we try
to do something to help give freedom to those to whom it is withheld.
Unfortunately there is always a price to pay for freedom � but there is a much
greater price to pay for letting it slip away.

I think Ada makes safer systems that minimize loss of civilian lives in many
hi-tech applications (not only weapons).  What I am concerned about is the
movement away from it today in so many areas.  I think there will be many more
unnecessary losses of lives in the future for these decisions, however well
intentioned they are.

Jerry
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Jerry Petrey
-- Senior Principal Systems Engineer - Navigation (GPS/INS), Guidance, & Control
-- Raytheon Missile Systems          - Member Team Ada & Team Forth
-- NOTE: please remove <NOSPAM> in email address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:19:09 -0700, Jerry Petrey
<"jdpetrey<NOSPAM>"@raytheon.com> wrote:


>I'm proud to be from a country with the guts to stand up against such
>people rather than burying their heads in the sand and talking about �peace and
>love� while the murderers continue their sprees.  We are not perfect but we try
>to do something to help give freedom to those to whom it is withheld.

[OFFTOPIC]
Interesting comment, as was the comment on UK TV by one of your
government officials. I can't remember the exact context, but it was
something akin to him being asked how he saw Iraq etc fitting in to
the American Empire. The response was: "well we don't have an empire -
yet".

Of course, even if Iraq did become part of the US Empire, like the UK
appears to have become (!), there would be much more freedom of speech
etc than under Saddam Hussein's regime, but don't for a minute think
that this war was *all* about freeing the Iraqis from oppression and
stopping Iraq from being a threat to 'world peace'.
[/OFFTOPIC]

>I think Ada makes safer systems that minimize loss of civilian lives in many
>hi-tech applications (not only weapons).  What I am concerned about is the
>movement away from it today in so many areas.  I think there will be many more
>unnecessary losses of lives in the future for these decisions, however well
>intentioned they are.

I agree. Although I no longer work with Ada :-( I would have
difficulty with the moral issue of working on safety critical and
similar systems that used C/C++/Java.

Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Colin Paul Gloster]

John McCabe wrote:
"[..] Although I no longer work with Ada[..]"

Why?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On 29 Apr 2003 17:08:47 GMT, Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul
Gloster) wrote:

>John McCabe wrote:
>"[..] Although I no longer work with Ada[..]"
>
>Why?

May be worth searching on Google groups for the answer(s) to that one
:-)

However - the short answer is that I was fed up working on defence and
aerospace projects that took years to complete and wanted to work on
more commercial short duration projects without having to relocate.
Unfortunately there aren't any companies I know of close to home who
do that kind of thing using Ada, so I had to compromise and find
someone who'd give me a job using C++. 

How's that?


Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Colin Paul Gloster]

In article <3eaf84fb.1642752@news.btclick.com>, John McCabe wrote:
"On 29 Apr 2003 17:08:47 GMT, Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul
Gloster) wrote:
 
>John McCabe wrote:
>"[..] Although I no longer work with Ada[..]"
>
>Why?

May be worth searching on Google groups for the answer(s) to that one
:-)

However - the short answer is that I was fed up working on defence and
aerospace projects that took years to complete and wanted to work on
more commercial short duration projects without having to relocate.
Unfortunately there aren't any companies I know of close to home who
do that kind of thing using Ada, so I had to compromise and find
someone who'd give me a job using C++. 

How's that?"


Maybe your beginning of the last sentence with "Unfortunately" confused
me, but I could suggest you feel that is is u"nforunate" :)

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On 30 Apr 2003 22:59:53 GMT, Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul
Gloster) wrote:

>Unfortunately there aren't any companies I know of close to home who
>do that kind of thing using Ada, so I had to compromise and find
>someone who'd give me a job using C++. 
>
>How's that?"
>
>
>Maybe your beginning of the last sentence with "Unfortunately" confused
>me, but I could suggest you feel that is is u"nforunate" :)

How do you mean?


Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Jerry Petrey wrote:
> We certainly don�t want to kill innocent civilians in a war, which is
> why we build smart weapons to minimize these unnecessary losses.
> However, nothing is perfect � there are always unexpected casualties
> in a war.  No one builds airliners to crash and kill civilians either
> but it happens.  We try to minimize it but it still happens.  Of
> course there are plenty of idiots in the world that have no problem
> using an airliner full of civilians as a weapon.  There are ruthless
> dictators like Saddam who have no problem torturing and killing his
> own people by the thousands, or his son who uses his penis for a
> weapon of torture.  I, for one, am proud to be making the weapons that
> help rid the world of such trash.  I'm proud to be from a country with
> the guts to stand up against such people rather than burying their
> heads in the sand and talking about �peace and love� while the
> murderers continue their sprees.  We are not perfect but we try to do
> something to help give freedom to those to whom it is withheld.
> Unfortunately there is always a price to pay for freedom � but there
> is a much greater price to pay for letting it slip away.

What does this have to do with what I wrote? I'm talking about using the
war as PR for Ada.

> I think Ada makes safer systems that minimize loss of civilian lives
> in many hi-tech applications (not only weapons).  What I am concerned
> about is the movement away from it today in so many areas.  I think
> there will be many more unnecessary losses of lives in the future for
> these decisions, however well intentioned they are.

As I also said you may find this kind of PR useful in military circles.
-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Russ]

Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> wrote in message news:<11uyyglln1rfa$.dlg@parsec.no-spoon.de>...
> On 2003-04-23 17:51:15, Robert C. Leif wrote:
> 
> > It might give us good publicity! The present success of military technology
> 
> Not in every country.

Ya, and France is probably hoping for the US DoD to mandate C.

RE: Ada in Iraq

[Robert C. Leif]

The technology was successful. However, the rational for its use is open to
question.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Scholl [mailto:stesch@no-spoon.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:28 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org

On 2003-04-23 17:51:15, Robert C. Leif wrote:

> It might give us good publicity! The present success of military
technology

Not in every country.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Stefan Scholl]

On 2003-04-24 07:27:38, Robert C. Leif wrote:

> The technology was successful. However, the rational for its use is open to
> question.

What would Weizenbaum say?

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John McCabe]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:51:15 -0700, "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>
wrote:

>It might give us good publicity! The present success of military technology
>has good connotations for decision makers. The compliment of this question
>is what languages were used for those very distressing occasions when the
>coalition hit the wrong targets?

American English by the sounds of it!


Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

>>is what languages were used for those very distressing occasions when the
>>coalition hit the wrong targets?
> 
> American English by the sounds of it!

This side of the pond, we say, "Pardon my French."

(Although "Pardon my Anglo-Saxon" would be more accurate)

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Preben Randhol]

Wesley Groleau wrote:
>>>is what languages were used for those very distressing occasions when the
>>>coalition hit the wrong targets?
>> 
>> American English by the sounds of it!
> 
> This side of the pond, we say, "Pardon my French."

This side being Canada or USA ? :-)

-- 
Preben Randhol                    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

> This side being Canada or USA ? :-)

Geographically, they're the same side.

But I'm in USA.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Stefan Scholl]

On 2003-04-24 16:06:09, Wesley Groleau wrote:
>> American English by the sounds of it! 
> This side of the pond, we say, "Pardon my French."

Cool. This is the origin of the phrase.

I remember a Dutch saying the same in German. Didn't know this is a
common phrase.

Re: [OT derived from] Ada in Iraq

[Colin Paul Gloster]

In article <mkche15p2mwi$.dlg@parsec.no-spoon.de>, Stefan Scholl wrote:
"On 2003-04-24 16:06:09, Wesley Groleau wrote:
[..]
> This side of the pond, we say, "Pardon my French.""

The phrase has also been in currency on some of the British Isles.

"Cool. This is the origin of the phrase.

I remember a Dutch[man] saying the same in German. Didn't know this is a
common phrase."

Another phrase -- "double Dutch" -- might amuse you.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Marc A. Criley]

18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0304222306.3ba6b11a@posting.google.com>...
> I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
> software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
> war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? I don't care about exact figures, I
> just want good ballpark estimates. Let's break it down as follows:

I don't think anyone is going to have comprehensive knowledge of what
all military systems were deployed in, and in support of, Iraqi
Freedom, and what languages they or their subsystems were programmed
in.

So the best one can hope for is anecdotal bits and pieces.

Here's some:

The B2 Weapons System Trainers and Mission Trainers (i.e., flight
simulators) are programmed in Ada.

The shipboard Tomahawk engagement planning system started
transitioning to an upgraded version that was programmed in Ada in the
late 90s, so it's a safe bet a very high number of Tomahawk launches
were planned with the aid of that system.

Another souce of info would be reviewing the "Military Applications"
section of "Who's using Ada?"
(http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html) and
determining which of those systems were likely employed in Iraq.

Marc A. Criley

Re: Ada in Iraq

[BurnsedBW]

In article <bebbba07.0304222306.3ba6b11a@posting.google.com>,
18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:

>I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
>software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
>war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? I don't care about exact figures, I
>just want good ballpark estimates. Let's break it down as follows:

At least the following systems, of which I have personal knowledge,
are/were written (and fielded) in Ada: the ATACMS missile (part of
MLRS family), the MLRS launcher, and (yes!) the PAC-3 missile.

-----
 BwB

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Jerry Petrey]

BurnsedBW wrote:

> In article <bebbba07.0304222306.3ba6b11a@posting.google.com>,
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
>
> >I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
> >software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
> >war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? I don't care about exact figures, I
> >just want good ballpark estimates. Let's break it down as follows:
>
> At least the following systems, of which I have personal knowledge,
> are/were written (and fielded) in Ada: the ATACMS missile (part of
> MLRS family), the MLRS launcher, and (yes!) the PAC-3 missile.
>
> -----
>  BwB

It is also used on some of our missiles, the JSOW and Paveway, in particular,
as well as on the
Apache and Comanche helicopters, Longbow missile, F-16 and F-18 fighters, B1
bomber,
C17, and C130J transports to name a few more applications.

Jerry
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Jerry Petrey
-- Senior Principal Systems Engineer - Navigation (GPS/INS), Guidance, &
Control
-- Raytheon Missile Systems          - Member Team Ada & Team Forth
-- NOTE: please remove <NOSPAM> in email address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Wesley Groleau]

>         I'd expect any mil-spec GPS gear is using Ada. What commercial grade 
> gear uses? Your guess is likely better than mine.

There was some GPS code in Jovial at one time.

Still in use?  I don't know.

Re: Ada in Iraq

[Richard Riehle]

Russ wrote:

> I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
> software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
> war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? I don't care about exact figures, I
> just want good ballpark estimates. Let's break it down as follows:

    Hellfire missile

    Much of the Bradley

    Other armored vehicles

    Various software systems for some of the bombers

    Other stuff that cannot be mentioned

Richard Riehle

Re: Ada in Iraq

[John R. Strohm]

"Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3EA87EEE.2C2BDC21@adaworks.com...
> Russ wrote:
>
> > I have a question for someone with extensive knowledge of military
> > software. What percentage of the military equipment used in the recent
> > war in Iraq was programmed in Ada? I don't care about exact figures, I
> > just want good ballpark estimates. Let's break it down as follows:
>
>     Hellfire missile
>
>     Much of the Bradley
>
>     Other armored vehicles
>
>     Various software systems for some of the bombers
>
>     Other stuff that cannot be mentioned

TOW ITAS (Improved Target Acquisition System: a sight, autotracker, and
guidance computer for the TOW missile) was written in Ada.  I worked on it.
Development was 1994-1995 at Texas Instruments.  I'd be very surprised if it
wasn't fielded by now.