LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  November 1996

TEAM-ADA November 1996

Subject:

Re: NRC Report

From:

AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:01:35 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Tucker Taft wrote:

> If you read the (full) report carefully, it is not a question of DoD turning
> it's back on Ada in the logistics (when non-critical) and financial systems
> market.  It is a question of the DoD recognizing that in these fields, it may
> be better for the DoD to follow rather than lead, for they are a relatively
> small part of the market.  The report encourages projects to consider
> Ada for custom 3GL development in these domains, and requires
> that projects go through a Software Engineering review process as
> part of making such a decision, but it drops the assertion that
> doing custom 3GL development exclusively in Ada in these domains is a
> "no-brainer." If Ada is going to be chosen for development in these domains,
> it needs to be actively chosen, rather than being used by default.

  Encouraging projects to consider Ada is an interesting notion. It isn't
  likely to work given all the bad press Ada has had over the past ten
  or more years.  You, Tucker, have done a fine piece of work in bringing
  Ada up-to-date, and I think the Ada policy should be extended so the
  minsconceptions regarding the language can be rectified through its use
  on a wider range of successful projects.  A lot of DoD managers are
  breathing a sigh of relief knowing they can now go about their software
  development process doing any damn thing they want. Certainly, that is
  what they have done for years, but rather than say, "We don't know how
  to manage a software policy, so let's throw it to the wolves," it would
  have been better to develop a program for improving management.

>
> Furthermore, in these domains, the development problem is often dominated
> by the challenges of using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) solutions
> wisely.  Custom 3GL development should be minimized where satisfactory
> cost-effective solutions can be built by integrating COTS products.

  I have no problem with using COTS.  However, COTS, when building
  software is not well-understood.  I see DoD sites which use
  so-called COTS development tools that result in so much procedural
  code (dBASE, FOXPRO, CLIPPER stuff) that no reasonable person could
  still consider it COTS. But it is determined to be COTS because the
  product used for the development is "off-the-shelf."

> On the other hand, in the DoD-dominated, high-assurance, real-time,
> "warfighting" domain, using Ada has compelling advantages, the DoD is
> the leader and should be more than willing to blaze a trail if
> necessary.

  Guess what?  This new policy will be followed more for its loopholes
  than for its recommendations.  What will be "warfighting?"  And this
  opens the door for people who are attempting to abandon Ada to even
  further erode its influence in DoD systems.

> This all seems to presume that if Ada has to be chosen rather than being
> mandated in these domains, that it won't be chosen.  Given your experience
> with your readers, that seems unnecessarily pessimistic, and a bit
> hypocritical.

  I respond first to your use of the emotionally-charged pejorative,
  "hypocritical."  I realize you may feel some investment in the report
  I am criticizing, but I am not attacking you or the other authors. I
  am questioning the report.  I respect you and all the other people
  who were on this committee, but I do disagree with the conclusions
  in the fragment I have read.

  The readers to who you refer are reacting favorably to the things
  written by me and others regarding the new Ada standard.  However,
  Ada does not have the dollars behind it that an overhyped newcomer
  such as Java has.  To abandon the Ada policy now is premature. In
  the next couple of years, it would make sense to revisit the policy,
  but Ada 95 is not gain the foothold it needs in the commercial sector
  if it is perceived as having been abandoned by the DoD. And that is
  exactly how it will be perceived in the press at large.

  Also, I have always felt the word "mandate" was inappropriate. It was
  used so heavily by Greg that everyone assumed it was a mandate. Rather,
  from my point-of-view, it has been a DoD policy, much like any other
  DoD policy.  The main difference between DoD software policy and other
  DoD policies is that this one was badly managed from the very start.

  So now, instead of managing better, we simply abandon what was a
  correct policy.  I see that as the wrong direction to proceed,
  especially given the quality of the new Ada 95 standard.

> Many people, including Greg et al, have been calling on the DoD to drop
> a mandate that isn't consistenly enforced, and let Ada stand or fall on
> its own merits.  The committee felt that the mandate was not being
> enforced consistently in these domains, and furthermore, there were
> enough other considerations in building systems in these domains that
> mandating Ada was being overly simplistic.  More important is to push
> people toward a "product-line", component-oriented mentality, and push
> them away from building DoD-unique, "stove-pipe," stand-alone solutions.
> It seems a misdirection of energy to mandate a particular 3GL in a domain
> where you believe that doing custom DoD-unique development in a 3GL is often
> the wrong solution, and that figuring out how to build on commercial
> investments is more important.

  It was not overly simplistic to have a single-language software policy.
  I repeat my earlier comment.  If the DoD could not manage its Ada
  policy, a single-language policy, how in the world will it manage a
  multi-language policy?  I disagree with the conclusions of the report.
  What I see on the horizon is a software mess of gigantic proportions
  as we let local managers, contractors, commanders, and programmers
  go any direction they want.  We will sacrifice portability.  We will
  sacrifice longevity of the code. We will sacrifice manageability
  of the process. Most of all, we will sacrifice quality.

  When speaking of Hamlet's madness, we hear the phrase, "T'is pity,
  t'is true. T'is true, t'is pity."  I fear for the result of this
  change in policy. T'is pity.


 Richard

 Richard Riehle
 [log in to unmask]
 AdaWorks Software Engineering
 Suite 30
 2555 Park Boulevard
 Palo Alto, CA 94306
 (415) 328-1815
  FAX  328-1112

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager