From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6d1607a5397de6b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Jeff Stimson" Subject: Re: Ada vs. C++ in defense projects Date: 2000/11/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 689644867 References: <39FDE9E4.35F615A6@netwood.net> <39FE461D.275F1363@ix.netcom.com> <8tmt7o$vbj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A02DB88.8A4232D1@lmco.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news3.rdc1.on.home.com 973357786 24.43.251.15 (Sat, 04 Nov 2000 09:09:46 PST) Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 09:09:46 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-11-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Most of my career has been based on writing applications in Ada. That has changed recently since absolutley no one wants anything other than C++ right now. I've just ramped up in C++ and am doing projects with it. I am not new to C since I have also used that for a number of years. My God. Is everyone blind to the inherent dangers in programming with C++ ? My last project in Ada (about 20K SLOC) was delivered to the customer about 8 months ago with no defects. That's zero, zip, 0, nadda. We have heard nothing back from them in terms of problems or bugs. I know for a fact that the current project (approx same size) in C++ will not turn out the same. I really despair at the dissapearance of Ada, and it is going away. We can fight and scream all we want but it is not being taught in colleges or universities, it is not being promoted by companies that have influence, and it still has a stigma with being 'that military language'. Sigh. "Michael P. Card" wrote in message news:3A02DB88.8A4232D1@lmco.com... > Mike- > > I am on a project now which is mixed Ada and C++. I find it frightening > that many defense contractors are pushing C++ for critical defense systems > like the one I am working on now, though thankfully I am on a team which is > working the Ada part. C++ is, IMO, an extremely poor choice for defense > systems for many reasons, not the least of which include portability, > readability, maintainability, and memory corruption due to invalid type > casts and over-writing array bounds. As far as I am concerned, there is no > financial or technical justification for using C++ on these kinds of > projects. > > IMO, the only reason it is chosen by mgmt and some engineers is that most > of us remember the big defense downturn of the late 80's and early 90's. If > you want to go work for Microsoft or a dot com, or if you want your resume > ready just in case, it is a lot better to be able to say "I managed a team > of 50 C++ programmers and we developed a 40 KSLOC distributed real-time C++ > application" or "As a S/W engineer at company X, I wrote 10 KSLOC of C++ on > my last project." Because of this "resume factor," engineers and managers > in the defense industry are willing (albeit often unintentional) > collaborators on the move to C++. > > When you couple this with amazing trends like the preference for Windows NT > as the information infrastructure for the CVN-77 (new Navy carrier), you > can begin to believe that it would be in America's best interest for the > government to pay M$ to re-write Windows, Office, Access, Project and SQL > Server in Ada. The way I see it, M$ would like it since they could improve > their products at taxpayer expense, consumers would get more reliable > software, and the DoD would get a better infrastructure for the CVN-77 and > future projects! (tongue-in-cheek here) > > - Mike > > mjsilva@my-deja.com wrote: > > > In article <39FE461D.275F1363@ix.netcom.com>, > > Lao Xiao Hai wrote: > > > > > > Indeed!!!!!!?????? Most organizations that I see choosing > > > C++ over Ada have done very little in the way of careful > > > study. Certainly no U.S. military organization has thought > > > this through very carefully. It is, in fact, quite scary. An > > > organization that could not manage a single-language > > > policy is under the illusion that it can manage a multiple- > > > language policy. > > > > I'm still interested in hearing if any of those who have switched from > > Ada to The Radiant Future of language X are finding that there's > > trouble in paradise X. It seems that if there is trouble in paradise X > > then we Ada advocates should be sure and document it for the benefit of > > others who are considering such a switch, or who are simply evaluating > > languages. OTOH, if everybody is happy as a clam using X then I guess > > we need to rethink some of our assumptions. > > > > Mike > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. >