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: Reactions to the NRC report (summary)

From:

AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:17:45 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Tucker Taft wrote:

> >   ... Nevertheless, I still believe the recommendation to
> >   abandon the Ada policy is just plain wrong.
>
> I'm surprised you equate "narrow the mandate to focus on
> warfighting systems, and fix the waiver process" with "abandon the
> Ada policy."  The bulk of the Ada code in the DoD is in the warfighting
> domain.  The compliance with the Ada mandate outside the warfighting
> domain has been rather poor.  The compliance within has been quite
> good, with the bulk of the new code being written in Ada, and with
> 50M SLOC already written.

  Tucker.  Thanks for this well-considered reply.  I agree that the
  bulk of the Ada code is for embedded weapons systems, if that is how
  we intend to define warfighting.  Further, I understand that the
  compliance outside that definition of warfighting has been "rather poor."

  My view on this subject can be summed up in the old poem that ends
  with, "For the lack of a nail, the war was lost."  Ralph Crafts,
  in his thoughtful critique of the report  noted the importance of
  "support" activities in warfighting.  The importance of a reliable
  logistics  system cannot be underestimated.  Unlike a commercial
  inventory system, a military inventory system can mean life or
  death.  The same is true for a lot of our "support " software.

  So, it might be important for us to define exactly what we mean
  by "warfighting."  My interpretation may be broader than what I
  suspect was intended by the authors of the NRC report.  However,
  if the authors meant to convey a meaning that went beyond my
  interpretation, so be it.


>
> If anything, taking an over-pessimistic view of the NRC recommendations
> might produce a self-fulfilling prophecy, namely that it will help
> those who chose to interpret them as recommending that the DoD
> abandon Ada completely.

  Well-said.  We would not want to give aid and comfort to those who
  would derive support for a non-Ada solution using the language of
  the report or the opinions expressed regarding it.  Sadly, though,
  there are already those in the software community (and the press)
  who are reacting to this report as if it is a recommendation to
  kill off Ada for anything except weapons systems.

  I would have preferred different language from "warfighting." OK,
  perhaps additional language. If the report had defined "warfighting,"
  and then added "... and safety-critical and mission-critical software
  applications,"  I would have been somewhat more tolerant of it. When
  I used the word "sloppy" in an earlier communication, it was not a
  slur on the scholarship of the authors.  Rather, it was a comment on
  the use of language that could be, and has been, interpreted in
  unfortunate ways.

> In fact, the NRC recommendations are an attempt to balance the
> realities of the modern software world with the DoD's special
> requirements in certain domains.  In these domains, DoD should
> be expected to lead; in other domains, where the DoD requirements more
> nearly match those of multinational corporations, the DoD should be prepared
> to learn what they can from the best commercial practices of such
> corporations, without necessarily creating an arbitrary impediment to
> technology sharing.  Ada might still be the best choice for a particular
> project in these other domains, but a mandate to use Ada for all 3GL
> development in these domains is not justified, given the overriding
> requirement that the DoD capitalize on commercial technology in
> these domains of commonality.

  First, I am glad to see acknowledegment of the need for the DoD to
  provide leadership in certain software areas.  In particular, the
  work of NRC panelist Dr. Boehm has made substantial contributions
  to this leadership.  In addition, other panelist have invented tools
  and techniques that put the DoD squarely out ahead of many commercial
  sofware organizations  -- especially in the the emerging discipline
  of software engineering for quality.

  Your own contribution, Tucker, with the design of Ada 95 should earn
  you far wider acclaim in the software community at-large than you
  have been accorded thus far.

  It is clear that the panelists are endowed with greater confidence
  in the commerical software community than I would have. If I were
  to once again apply the word "sloppy" to an enterprise, it would be
  to much of what I see in commercial software practice.  Once again,
  the leadership and vision of people such as Dr. Wasserman and Dr.
  Boehm puts the DoD ahead of many commercial organizations.

  It is with regard to management of the language policy that the DoD
  has faltered.  And the faltering has not been because of the language
  policy but because it failed to manage that policy effectively. The
  policy has been correct.  I restate my earlier point that, if we
  abandon the "Ada is the default for all software development" policy,
  (my tacit acknowledgement of the importance of COTS), we will
  dramatically increase the complexity of the total software process.

  A move from Ada at this point in its history, given the outstanding
  design of the Ada 95 standard, would be exactly the wrong move. Ada
  95 is an excellent software backplane for supporting all phases of
  the software construction process, from requirements definition
  through deployment and maintenance. The Ada software backplane provides
  a linguistic continuity for integrating COTS, building wrappers for
  legacy code, re-engineering existing systems, and creating entirely
  new applications.

  Joni Mitchell sings, "You don't know what you've got till its gone."
  What we have now is an Ada, thanks largely to your work, Tucker, that
  can support a broader range of applications than we have previously
  imagined.  I am working with Ada 95 daily and the more I see the more
  I realize just what a fine piece of work it is.  As we sit here in this
  leaky software boat, wondering what to do, we do not want to throw
  overboard the tool we have found useful to bail out the boat. If we
  do, we won't know what we've got till its gone.

  So I stand by my position that the DoD should continue to abide by its
  single-language policy and the single lanuage should still be Ada.

  Richard Riehle

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