Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Robert B. Love]

While use and waivers for Ada on DoD projects is discussed here 
a lot, what about non-DoD big gov't projects?  Anybody have any
info on Ada usage in:

1) NSA
2) NRO
3) CIA
4) NASA  (other than space station)
5) FAA
6) NOAA
7) DOE

Concerning #7, I know a little about what the Idaho reactor people do 
with
Ada but what about Los Alamos & Lawrence Livermore.

And can I get in trouble for asking about 1-3? <grin>

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Love, rlove@neosoft.com (local)        MIME & NeXT Mail OK
rlove@raptor.rmnug.org  (permanent)        PGP key available
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[John Woodruff]

>>>>> "Bob" == Robert B Love <rlove@neosoft.com> writes:

    > While use and waivers for Ada on DoD projects is discussed here a
    > lot, what about non-DoD big gov't projects?  Anybody have any info
    > on Ada usage in:

others, and 

    > 7) DOE

    > Concerning #7, I know a little about what the Idaho reactor people
    > do with Ada but what about Los Alamos & Lawrence Livermore.

At LLNL we are just beginning the National Ignition Facility project to
build a laser for inertial confinement fusion research.  Our software
will be in Ada-95.  (The Nova laser is controlled by Ada software as
well).

NIF is just completing the Title-I engineering phase; scheduled
completion in 2002, project cost $1.1 billion.

The design of the laser is 192 beams, each 40 cm aperture; 1.8 MegaJoule
energy in 25 nanosecond pulse.  Control system controls some 45000
points in six subsystems.

Also at LLNL the physical security system called Argus is implemented in
Ada.

--
John Woodruff	                                          N I F   \ ^ /
Lawrence Livermore National Lab                         =====---- < 0 >
510 422 4661                                                      / v \

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Joe Gwinn]

The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the AAS
debacle.  It isn't often one gets to waste $6 billion.  Only ANSI C and
C++ are permitted, except where existing systems are being modified. 
There was a newsgroup debate on the wisdom of this decision, but the FAA
has in fact backed away from Ada.

Joe Gwinn


In article <4vnlgn$mko@uuneo.neosoft.com>, rlove@neosoft.com (Robert B.
Love ) wrote:

> While use and waivers for Ada on DoD projects is discussed here 
> a lot, what about non-DoD big gov't projects?  Anybody have any
> info on Ada usage in:
> 
> 1) NSA
> 2) NRO
> 3) CIA
> 4) NASA  (other than space station)
> 5) FAA
> 6) NOAA
> 7) DOE
> 
> Concerning #7, I know a little about what the Idaho reactor people do 
> with
> Ada but what about Los Alamos & Lawrence Livermore.
> 
> And can I get in trouble for asking about 1-3? <grin>
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Love, rlove@neosoft.com (local)        MIME & NeXT Mail OK
> rlove@raptor.rmnug.org  (permanent)        PGP key available
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Robert B. Love]

In <gwinn-0509961642430001@smc19.ed.ray.com> Joe Gwinn wrote:
> The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the 
AAS
> debacle.  It isn't often one gets to waste $6 billion.  Only ANSI C 
and
> C++ are permitted, except where existing systems are being modified. 
> There was a newsgroup debate on the wisdom of this decision, but the 
FAA
> has in fact backed away from Ada.

Isn't Thomson/France bragging they've done 30-some nation's air traffic
control systems in Ada?  Isn't Canada doing theirs now in Ada?  This 
seems
like a clear statement of Ada's suitablility for the task and against
the competence of the AAS managers.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Love, rlove@neosoft.com (local)        MIME & NeXT Mail OK
rlove@raptor.rmnug.org  (permanent)        PGP key available
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Chris Brand]

Robert B. Love wrote:
> 
> Isn't Thomson/France bragging they've done 30-some nation's air traffic
> control systems in Ada?  Isn't Canada doing theirs now in Ada?  This
> seems
> like a clear statement of Ada's suitablility for the task and against
> the competence of the AAS managers.
> 

I'm working on the Canadian ATC system, which is almost all Ada.

-- 
Chris
Stating my own opinions, not those of my company.

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <32304E20.E6B@ccgate.hac.com>, Chris Brand <cbrand@ccgate.hac.com> writes:

> I'm working on the Canadian ATC system, which is almost all Ada.

Perhaps in the future some of us in the US will favor transcontinental
flights that spend most of the trip over Canada.

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <50nn37$rpa@uuneo.neosoft.com> rlove@neosoft.com (Robert B. Love ) writes:

> In <gwinn-0509961642430001@smc19.ed.ray.com> Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the 
> AAS
> > debacle.  It isn't often one gets to waste $6 billion.  Only ANSI C 
> and
> > C++ are permitted, except where existing systems are being modified. 
> > There was a newsgroup debate on the wisdom of this decision, but the 
> FAA
> > has in fact backed away from Ada.
> 
> Isn't Thomson/France bragging they've done 30-some nation's air traffic
> control systems in Ada?  Isn't Canada doing theirs now in Ada?

Yes - something like that (I don't know about the exact number).  Dunno
about Canada, but I seem to recall that is also "yes" as well as Australia.


> This seems like a clear statement of Ada's suitablility for the task
> and against the competence of the AAS managers.

Yes sir-ee.  I do believe you've got your mind around it.  But remember -
we're talking about upper level and bean counter management at FAA.  A
dumber more incompetent bunch of fools would be harder to find.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Ron Thompson]

gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn) wrote:
>The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the AAS
>debacle.  It isn't often one gets to waste $6 billion.  Only ANSI C and
>C++ are permitted, except where existing systems are being modified. 
>There was a newsgroup debate on the wisdom of this decision, but the FAA
>has in fact backed away from Ada.
>
>Joe Gwinn
>
>

All government agencies have public affairs offices that will
happily provide all the factual information available to the
public, which is nearly everything most of us do. You own it.
While it can be frustrating and difficult to navigate the
system(s) in order to get that info, it is there. While that
info may not support a position or agree with an assertion,
it is there. 

1. The FAA will "permit" whatever language the approved system
design indicates.

2. "AAS debacle" would have happened even if it was done in 
the most popular, most approved by newsgroups, most Win95
compliant, Java friendly, Hot Cool Web Browsing lanugage in
the entire free global village. "AAS debacle" had little to
none to do with the language. Most debacles don't. 

3. We may have been born on a weekend, but not last weekend.
If you limit development to C and C++, and you are the govt,
you will be sued.

4. While the waiver system has somewhat waivered, your overall
writing indicates that the FAA would immediately reject
anything that came in that wasn't c, c++. It implies that the
FAA would deny any system concept written in Ada. Man, can
you imagine the lawsuits?

rct, an Ada programmer

The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Richard Riehle]

On 5 Sep 1996, Robert B. Love wrote:

> In <gwinn-0509961642430001@smc19.ed.ray.com> Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the
> AAS

> Isn't Thomson/France bragging they've done 30-some nation's air traffic
> control systems in Ada?  Isn't Canada doing theirs now in Ada?  This
> seems
> like a clear statement of Ada's suitablility for the task and against
> the competence of the AAS managers.

  Yes, Robert. Every programmer I have talked to involved in the AAS
  project has ridiculed the competence of the project managers.  It
  never was a language issue.  If I ever see a resume cross my desk
  which says something like, "Project Manager for AAS" it will
  will be instantaneously re-routed to the nearest wastebasket.

  Richard Riehle

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <32304E20.E6B@ccgate.hac.com>,
Chris Brand  <cbrand@ccgate.hac.com> wrote:
>Robert B. Love wrote:
>> 
>> Isn't Thomson/France bragging they've done 30-some nation's air traffic
>> control systems in Ada?  Isn't Canada doing theirs now in Ada?  This
>> seems
>> like a clear statement of Ada's suitablility for the task and against
>> the competence of the AAS managers.
>> 
>
>I'm working on the Canadian ATC system, which is almost all Ada.
>
>-- 
>Chris
>Stating my own opinions, not those of my company.


Interesting Projects (mostly non-defense)
in which Ada is used to at least a significant degree.

I am just getting starting with this categorization by domain;
I know the list is incomplete. I am very interested in getting
additions, corrections, and additional domains; I want the data
to be current and verifiable.

Michael B. Feldman
chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5919 (voice)
202-994-0227 (fax)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)

Air Traffic Control Systems, by country

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Ireland
Kenya
Netherlands
New Zealand
Pakistan
Scotland
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
Vietnam


Banking and Financial Networks

Reuters news service
Swiss Postbank Electronic Funds Transfer system


Commercial Aircraft

Airbus 330
Airbus 340
Beechjet 400A (US business jet)
Beech Starship I (US business turboprop)
Beriev BE-200 (Russian forest fire patrol)
Boeing 737-200, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800
Boeing 747-400
Boeing 757
Boeing 767
Boeing 777
Canadair Regional Jet
Embraer CBA-123 and CBA-145 (Brazilian-made regional airliners)
Fokker F-100 (Dutch DC-9-size airliner - American Airlines flies these)
Ilyushin 96M (Russian jetliner)
Saab 2000
Tupolev TU-204 (Russian jetliner)


Communication and Navigational Satellites and receivers

INMARSAT - voice and data communications to ships and mobile communications
Intelsat VII
NSTAR (Nippon Telephone and Telegraph)
PanAmSat (South American Intelsat-like consortium)
United States Coast Guard Differential Global Positioning System (GPS)
Rockwell Collins NavCore V GPS receiver
ESA/Alcatel-SEL GPS receiver
TDRSS Ground Terminals - NASA


Scientific Satellites

Cassini command subsystem
ENVISAT-1 - European Space Agency (ESA), Earth observation satellite
XMM - ESA
EOS - NASA's Earth Observing System
Goes
RadarSat (Canada)
UK Space Technology Research Vehicle, auxillary payload on Ariane4


Railway Transportation

Cairo Metro
Calcutta Metro
Caracas Metro
Channel Tunnel
Conrail (major U.S. railway company)
French High-Speed Rail (TGV)
French National Railways
Hong Kong Suburban Rail
London Underground
Paris Metro
Paris Suburban Rail


Television Industry

Canal+ (French pay-per-view TV, remote cable box control software)


Medical Industry

JEOL Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Alex P. Madarasz, Jr.]

Chris Brand wrote:
> I'm working on the Canadian ATC system, which is almost all Ada.

Well, Hell, waddaya Hughes weinies know about Ada anywho?!

;-)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Alex P. Madarasz, Jr. - Hughes Training, Inc. - alex@eagle.bgm.link.com

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <50p6ldINNall@faatcrl.faa.gov>, Ron Thompson
<thompsor@admin.tc.faa.gov> wrote:

> All government agencies have public affairs offices that will
> happily provide all the factual information available to the
> public, which is nearly everything most of us do. You own it.
> While it can be frustrating and difficult to navigate the
> system(s) in order to get that info, it is there. While that
> info may not support a position or agree with an assertion,
> it is there. 

I don't know how much credence I would put in the party line from the PR
dept.  That's why I don't bother to ask.  And I know technical people who
were there.


> 1. The FAA will "permit" whatever language the approved system
> design indicates.

That isn't what the last two FAA RFPs I worked on said.  They said that
one could choose between C and C++; Ada was excluded by omission.  We have
it by usually reliable channels that this omission was not an accident.


> 2. "AAS debacle" would have happened even if it was done in 
> the most popular, most approved by newsgroups, most Win95
> compliant, Java friendly, Hot Cool Web Browsing lanugage in
> the entire free global village. "AAS debacle" had little to
> none to do with the language. Most debacles don't. 

I agree, but so what?  I'm not the FAA.  And, I would be terrified to use
such trendy stuff anyway -- all that stuff is vaporware, and certainly not
something I would bet civilian airliners on.  However, C is widely and
successfully used in ATC.


> 3. We may have been born on a weekend, but not last weekend.
> If you limit development to C and C++, and you are the govt,
> you will be sued.

Not at all.  They are buying full-custom, and can have it in any language
they want.  And, the main language of the ATC world is C, not Ada, so it
would be hard to criticise their choice of C.  There is probably ten times
as much C as Ada used in ATC applications.  It matters not at all that
Thompson/CSF has been using and touting Ada.


> 4. While the waiver system has somewhat waivered, your overall
> writing indicates that the FAA would immediately reject
> anything that came in that wasn't c, c++. It implies that the
> FAA would deny any system concept written in Ada. Man, can
> you imagine the lawsuits?

See comment on item 3, above.  It seems to me that the FAA is talking only
about the final implementation language.  I'm not sure what a "system
concept written in Ada" would be, unless you mean Ada PDL.  I don't know
that anybody has tried that wrinkle out on the FAA lately.  We (Raytheon)
actually implemented a Canadian ATC system in C with Ada PDL in the mid
1980s, as Ada83 compilers weren't then ready for prime time.  It turned
out to be a bad idea -- the language models were too far apart.  We got it
to work anyway, but wouldn't do it that way again.
 

Joe Gwinn

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <gwinn-0909962045450001@smc19.ed.ray.com> gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn) writes:

> > 3. We may have been born on a weekend, but not last weekend.
> > If you limit development to C and C++, and you are the govt,
> > you will be sued.
> 
> Not at all.  They are buying full-custom, and can have it in any language
> they want.  And, the main language of the ATC world is C, not Ada, so it
> would be hard to criticise their choice of C.  There is probably ten times
> as much C as Ada used in ATC applications.  It matters not at all that
> Thompson/CSF has been using and touting Ada.

In US FAA ATC?  Or world wide ATC?  The evidence so far indicated
certainly seems to point that the use of just "ATC" here, is a very
parochial view.  Anyone really know?


/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Bob Noel]

In article <JSA.96Sep10141151@alexandria>, jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:

> > Not at all.  They are buying full-custom, and can have it in any language
> > they want.  And, the main language of the ATC world is C, not Ada, so it
> > would be hard to criticise their choice of C.  There is probably ten times
> > as much C as Ada used in ATC applications.  It matters not at all that
> > Thompson/CSF has been using and touting Ada.
> 
> In US FAA ATC?  Or world wide ATC?  The evidence so far indicated
> certainly seems to point that the use of just "ATC" here, is a very
> parochial view.  Anyone really know?

At least some of the systems the FAA is buying are not "full-custom" 
ATC.  STARS is modified COTS.  The STARS specification requires 
that the application software be written in FIPS-compliant Ada or C.

-- 
Bob Noel
why do people over load their
webpages with unnecessary gifs?

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Ron Thompson]

gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn) wrote:
>In article <50p6ldINNall@faatcrl.faa.gov>, Ron Thompson
><thompsor@admin.tc.faa.gov> wrote:

I did write, and I am glad to see a tech from a company able
to talk to a tech from the gummint.  We need this sort of
exchange, and here goes:

>I don't know how much credence I would put in the party line from the PR
>dept.  That's why I don't bother to ask.  And I know technical people who
>were there.

I couldn't agree more with your "party line" hesitation.
Note however that I said factual info. It is there and can
be gotten, once one gets past any party lines from the PR
folks. Those people have TWO jobs, answer for all of us in
a uniform voice, and provide facts.


>That isn't what the last two FAA RFPs I worked on said.  They said that
>one could choose between C and C++; Ada was excluded by omission.  We have
>it by usually reliable channels that this omission was not an accident.

I have no doubt that the RFP said something along the lines
of "in a High Order Language such as C or C++...".
Ada may not have appeared in the "such as" list.  Usually 
reliable channels could certainly suggest that it was no
accident.

>I agree, but so what?  I'm not the FAA.  And, I would be terrified to use
>such trendy stuff anyway -- all that stuff is vaporware, and certainly not
>something I would bet civilian airliners on.  However, C is widely and
>successfully used in ATC.

My answer may have appeared to advocate the use of such a 
scheme.  I apologize for its' lack of clarity.  My only point
was that the language did not in any way cause the debacle,
therefore, the AAS debacle was not and should never be a 
"lesson learned" about using Ada.

>Not at all.  They are buying full-custom, and can have it in any language
>they want.  And, the main language of the ATC world is C, not Ada, so it
>would be hard to criticise their choice of C.  There is probably ten times
>as much C as Ada used in ATC applications.  It matters not at all that
>Thompson/CSF has been using and touting Ada.

I can assure you that fine companies all over the USofA listen
closely to the awarding of contracts, and line up the lawyers
for the appeals.  Any doubts about that?  Watch the news this
week, Friday, when there is a really big contract award
announcement.  Contact us in a year to see how many appeals
and suits are pending based on that award.  The point was not
the choice of C or C++.  We wouldn't criticise anyone for
submitting a system design using C or C++.  I will bet a 
dollar that if my company got the job on an Ada bid, LOTS 
of companies would appeal/sue based on the fact ONLY that they 
DIDN'T get it.  And I bet another dollar that part of the
justification that they would use would be the AAS debacle 
and how it happened because of Ada, and all of the techs know
that is not true.  C and C++ are definitely used 10 times as 
much as Ada.  If the contract is awarded based on 
cost/schedule, and not on what it is that makes a good system, 
Ada is doomed.  Remember the huge curve that Ada allegedly 
has.  Remember that C/C++ programmers are rapidly becoming the 
MBAs of the 90s.  Cost and schedule rules.

>See comment on item 3, above.  It seems to me that the FAA is talking only
>about the final implementation language.  I'm not sure what a "system
>concept written in Ada" would be, unless you mean Ada PDL.  I don't know
>that anybody has tried that wrinkle out on the FAA lately.  We (Raytheon)
>actually implemented a Canadian ATC system in C with Ada PDL in the mid
>1980s, as Ada83 compilers weren't then ready for prime time.  It turned
>out to be a bad idea -- the language models were too far apart.  We got it
>to work anyway, but wouldn't do it that way again.


Again my apology for the muddiness of the answer.  If my
company submits a bid on a system, and it is to use Ada for
the software, and the FAA awards it to another company because
my company chose Ada, my lawyers would be working overtime for
the forseable future.  Those are the facts of the CONTRACTS
end of this business.  A large and well known company has had
a contract for approximately two years.  It is behind 
schedule in a large way, and they are back at the trough with
the right hand out looking for money to bring the thing up to
speed.  The FAA says no, we are cancelling the contract with
you.  It is later awarded to another company that was one of
the bidders on the initial RFP.  The company that ran 
themselves into the ground on it goes to court and sues the
government because we won't play the way we used to. THOSE
are the facts about the contracting end of this business.
THAT is happening as we speak.
> 
>
>Joe Gwinn

Again, thanks for the healthy debate.  My only intention was
to point out that the "AAS debacle" was NOT a language 
problem, and that limiting ourselves to any single language 
would be just as bad as any other large company limiting 
themselves to a single language or variations of it.
The references to law suits and appeals is a reference to the
things that go on after the awarding of a contract, and the
public doesn't usually pay much attention to them.

Your swing...

rct

The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Kevin D. Heatwole]

gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn) wrote:
>The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the AAS
>debacle.  It isn't often one gets to waste $6 billion.  Only ANSI C and
>C++ are permitted, except where existing systems are being modified. 
>There was a newsgroup debate on the wisdom of this decision, but the FAA
>has in fact backed away from Ada.
>
>Joe Gwinn

I just couldn't hardly believe that this statement was true, so I asked around.
According to my sources, there is no FAA-wide directive against the use of Ada.
In fact, the FAA Enroute program manager had a 3-month or so task force of
various companies/consultants involved in the enroute world.  The purpose
was to establish a direction for enroute programs.  The result, from what
I have been able to tell, is that the Enroute FAA programs have recommended
Ada 95 as the first choice of languages, with C++ a possibility if there emerges
a clear industry standard.  This "direction" on what language to use was
not the main focus of the task force, but apparently Ada more than held
up against C++ (although there were some very vocal members of the task
force that originally argued for C++).

Of course, it remains to be seen if this recommendation will have any actual
impact on future enroute work.

I would love to see you followup with more information supporting your
statements.   If such a prejudice against Ada exists within the FAA, I want
to know about it.

Kevin Heatwole
OC Systems, Inc.

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Sandy McPherson]

Jon S Anthony wrote:
>
> > as much C as Ada used in ATC applications.  It matters not at all that
> > Thompson/CSF has been using and touting Ada.
> 
> In US FAA ATC?  Or world wide ATC?  The evidence so far indicated
> certainly seems to point that the use of just "ATC" here, is a very
> parochial view.  Anyone really know?
> 

AFAIK Eurocontrol are adherents of Ada, they provide the Europe wide
glue to stick national civilian ATC systems together. I haven't got a
clue what the CAA in the UK and the other national authorities use. All
military ATC systems that I know of in Europe are Ada, unless they are
ancient. I guess the Asians mainly buy their stuff from the US.

BTW. for those of us on the eastern side of the pond, why is the FAA up
tight about Ada?

Under normal circumstances why would anyone be bothered about a
language, if they are buying a turnkey system on fixed price?. The
Reliability, Availability, Maintenance and Safety (RAMS) analysis is the
relevant vehicle for language choice. Most of the cock-ups I've come
across are due to broken and/or incomplete requirements, or inadequate
resources, not the language choice. Would I be correct in assuming this
is the major reason for the FAA's problem? I did see one classic bungle
which was caused by use of a required language, but the cause was a lack
of a compiler for the chosen (due to political considerations) target.
(Don't ask me why the target and/or language wasn't changed)

In the position of a project manager on a tightly budgeted fixed price
contract I would want to play safe and use my own tried and tested
methods, languages, hardware etc.. Call me a Luddite if you will. but if
I had 20 experts who had written safety critical software in Ada for 10
years, I would not want to re-train them at huge cost and against their
will to do a system in C and conversely if I had a proven C development
team I would not be keen going the other way. It would of course be a
different matter if the customer was prepared to pay for all of this.

-- 
Sandy McPherson	MBCS CEng.	tel: 	+31 71 565 4288 (w)
ESTEC/WAS
P.O. Box 299
NL-2200AG Noordwijk

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <rwnoel-1009961854130001@rwnoel.tiac.net>, rwnoel@tiac.net (Bob
Noel) wrote:

> At least some of the systems the FAA is buying are not "full-custom" 
> ATC.  STARS is modified COTS.  The STARS specification requires 
> that the application software be written in FIPS-compliant Ada or C.

COTS, modified or not, pretty much pushes you into use of C, as the vast
bulk of existing NDI/COTS code available and suitable for ATC is written
in C.  I think many systems will end up with mixtures of C and Ada, as
it's almost never cost effective to rewrite working fielded code just
because it isn't in the language of choice, whatever that might be. 
Adding support for an additional language is orders of magnitude cheaper
and less risky than rewriting a few hundred thousand lines of code.

There isn't that much ATC stuff in C++ just yet, and it's a matter of
debate whether C++ is currently mature enough for ATC use.  There is one
school of thought that we should wait until C++ is fully standardized (by
ANSI/ISO), plus a few years for the tools and implementations to settle
and mature.  However, C++ is rapidly inheriting C's mantle, as the upgrade
is the path of least resistance.

Joe Gwinn

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada (C-based COTS no excuse...)

[David Emery]

>COTS, modified or not, pretty much pushes you into use of C, as the vast
>bulk of existing NDI/COTS code available and suitable for ATC is written
>in C.  I think many systems will end up with mixtures of C and Ada, as
>it's almost never cost effective to rewrite working fielded code just
>because it isn't in the language of choice, whatever that might be. 
>Adding support for an additional language is orders of magnitude cheaper
>and less risky than rewriting a few hundred thousand lines of code.

I agree with the second point, but I think that the excuse that "the
COTS is written in C, so we have to write the application in C" is a
technical and managerial red herring.  

In 12 years of implementing Ada bindings to COTS written in C (I
started doing this with Vads/Ultrix 4.0.6 in 1984...), I've found that
there were very few situations where I couldn't construct an effective
Ada binding to the C-based COTS.  And, more importantly, the Ada
binding development costs more than paid for itself in reducing
debugging time.  

In one example, the MITRE prototype binding to XVT, the team estimated
that the Ada binding prevented or trapped most of the interface bugs
with XVT.  For instance, where the C implementation used a union, we
used a variant record.  We caught several 'type mismatches' via a
constraint_error on the use of a discriminant value that did not match
the expected discriminant (e.g. trying to pass a field when a button
was expected.)  In C, these would have been much harder to discover.
And, we found several bugs in the COTS product by trying capture and
'project' the COTS C-based semantics into Ada.

My guesstimate was that we recovered the 4 staff-weeks it took us to
do the Ada binding in 2 months of using the binding, and this on a
5-person project producing only 20ksloc of code as a subset/prototype.
For 'real development' (the system we subsetted was about 150ksloc
with full functionality), the Ada binding probably had at least a 5-1
return on investment, mostly in reduced debugging time, but also in
increased understanding of the underlying COTS product.

Where I'm working now, we have developed (or had the vendor develop)
several Ada bindings to COTS products for GUI, digital mapping, etc.  
Although some of the bindings were not done the way I would have done
them, in all cases they have been "in the noise" with respect to the
overall product costs.  And I've been the benificiary of a lot of bugs
that were prevented via strong-typing/compiler errors, or that were
caught early with an appropriate error message, by our Ada bindings.  

And I -am- working in the ATC domain!

				dave
--
<.sig is away on vacation>

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <50uoh3$s4q@felix.seas.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
Feldman) wrote:

> Interesting Projects (mostly non-defense)
> in which Ada is used to at least a significant degree.
> 
> I am just getting starting with this categorization by domain;
> I know the list is incomplete. I am very interested in getting
> additions, corrections, and additional domains; I want the data
> to be current and verifiable.

It would be interesting to know the size of these systems, in lines of
code, segregated by language, and in dollars.  (I bet you will find lots
of fortran still in use.  And Jovial.  Maybe even some assembly.)

Also, how much unique code is involved?  For instance, the ATC systems
have lots of reused code in them; each ATC system developer has a code
base that they sell time after time, with (in theory) minor changes.  One
hopes and assumes that the code for all those Boeing 7x7 aircraft is
mostly common, and well-tested.

Joe Gwinn

Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <gwinn-1809961848150001@smc19.ed.ray.com>,
Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
>In article <50uoh3$s4q@felix.seas.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
>Feldman) wrote:
>
>> Interesting Projects (mostly non-defense)
>> in which Ada is used to at least a significant degree.
>> 
>> I am just getting starting with this categorization by domain;
>> I know the list is incomplete. I am very interested in getting
>> additions, corrections, and additional domains; I want the data
>> to be current and verifiable.
>
>It would be interesting to know the size of these systems, in lines of
>code, segregated by language, and in dollars.  (I bet you will find lots
>of fortran still in use.  And Jovial.  Maybe even some assembly.)

I agree, but of course it would take at least one full-time person 
to research all that. My goal in that list is not to produce a detailed
abstract on each of those projects, but to give the community
something in bullet-list form that they can crib and paste into
their Ada "sales pitches".

Even if there were resources to dig all that info out, many of the
projects mentioned in that list came from tips from (presumably) reliable
sources. There were even a few "you didn;t hear this from me" messages.
Not all companies are thrilled at seeing their stories told publicly,
so all I'm doing is putting a line on that list.
>
>Also, how much unique code is involved?  For instance, the ATC systems
>have lots of reused code in them; each ATC system developer has a code
>base that they sell time after time, with (in theory) minor changes.  One
>hopes and assumes that the code for all those Boeing 7x7 aircraft is
>mostly common, and well-tested.

Yes indeed. Nothing wrong in that, is there? One tip I got was a fax
of a 1992 paper in a European equivalent to "Aviation Week", written by
J.F. Wets, a top manager at Thomson/CSF. At that time, they were getting
_very_ high reuse (approaching 80%!) from one country's ATC to another. 
This guy - the ATC group VP, not a sales type - said it was "impossible" 
that Thomson/CSF or any of its competitors would propose an ATC system
that would _not_ use Ada.

Compare this to the geniuses at the FAA.

I'm trying to find a way to get an update to that article. Anyone
who can help out there?

>Joe Gwinn

Mike Feldman