TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:07:10 -0800
Reply-To: AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (402 lines)
Some of you teamers have not seen the report. I am forwarding what
I received from OTG

----------
----------
From:  [log in to unmask][SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:  Saturday, November 02, 1996 5:48 AM

Dear DMIM Partners,

It looks like the Ada issue may soon be resolved.  It is likely that the
following recommendations will be incorporated in future policy after this
report is forwarded for congressional review and approval.

John Weiler
The OBJECTive TECHNOLOGY GROUP, Ltd.
[log in to unmask]
www.theotg.com
703-768-0400

------- Forwarded Message


Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:11:03 GMT
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Originator: [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
From: Software Engineering Information Center
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NRC CSTB Ada Public Briefing Summary

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board
National Research Council
210 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  20418

Phone: (202)334-2318
Fax: (202)334-2318
Internet: [log in to unmask]
World Wide Web: WWW2.NAS.EDU/CTSBWEB

Office Location
Milton Harris BLDG.RM 560
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
(Off Whitehaven Street)

Committee on the Past and Present Contexts for the Use of
Ada in the Department of Defense

Barry Boehm, Chair
University of Southern California

Theodore Baker
Florida State University

Wesley Embry
Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Joseph Fox
Template Software

Paul Hilfinger
University of California at Berkeley

Maretta Holden
Boeing Defense and Space Group

J. Elliot B. Moss
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Walker Royce
Rational Software Corporation

William Scherlis
Carnegie Mellon University

S. Tucker Taft
Intermetrics, Inc.

Rayford Vaughn
Electronic Data Systems Corporation

Anthony Wasserman
Interactive Development Environments, Inc.

Barbara Liskov, Special Advisor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Staff

Paul Semenza
Study Director, CSTB

Ada and Beyond: Software Policies for the Department of
Defense

What should the Department of Defense do about the Ada
programming language?  Despite the languages technical
capabilities, it has not been widely used outside of
military and other safety-critical applications, as was
hoped when the language was developed in the 1970s.  The
Defense Departments policy on programming languages, which
requires the use of Ada for all new software development,
has resulted in many conflicts and has not been implemented
evenly.  Meanwhile, commercial software applications have
grown rapidly, and do not generally use Ada.

The Committee on the Past and Present Contexts for the Use
of Ada in the Department of Defense was created by the
National Research Councils Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board to review the current policy, and
to examine the role of Ada in software development.  The
study was requested by the Office of the Assistant secretary
of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence.  Released today, Ada and Beyond: Software
Policies for the Department of Defense presents the
committees findings and recommendations.

The committee concluded the vigorous support of Ada would
benefit warfighting systems, and recommends that the
Department of Defense should continue to use and promote Ada
in such systems.  However, the committee found significant
problems with the two primary components of the Defense
Departments current strategy for Ada.  First, the current
programming language policy requires the use of Ada for all
new defense software, which the committee finds to be overly
broad in scope.  Second, the Defense Departments plan to
discontinue investments in both Ada technology and user-
community support will weaken the Ada infrastructure, and
will work against any requirement to use Ada in the future.

In summary, Ada and Beyond:  Software Policies for the
Department of Defense concludes that the Defense Department
should  take the following steps regarding Ada:

1. Continue to require Ada for its warfighting software and
drop the Ada requirement for its other software.  In
commercially dominated areas, using Ada is generally less
cost-effective than using other languages.  Requiring the
use of Ada in these areas would place the Defense Department
at a competitive disadvantage.  In warfighting application
areas, however, Adas technical capabilities for real-time,
high assurance custom software are generally superior to
those of other languages.  The Defense Departments
investments in Ada to date have created a set of Ada-based
production factors that give its system advantages in these
areas.

2. Provide roughly $15 million per year for Ada
infrastructure support, or drop the requirement to use Ada
entirely.  The commercial marketplace will not sustain a
robust Ada infrastructure.  However, a relatively modest
($15 million per year) investment at the margin by the
Defense Department would be sufficient to sustain a robust
Ada infrastructure for warfighting applications.  The
Defense Departments inventory of more than 50 million lines
of warfighting software must either be maintained in Ada or
converted to another programming language.  The recommended
investment is modest with this maintenance burden.

3. Make programming language decisions in the context of a
Software Engineering Plan Review process.  The choice of
programming language is one component of the software-
engineering process, and should be considered in the broader
context of decisions regarding architecture, software reuse,
and software process management.

In the course of this study, the committee also concluded
that the currently available data are insufficient, on their
own, to accurately determine the impact of programming
language choice on the outcome of defense programs.
Committee briefings also highlighted the difficulty that
program managers have in finding data on which they can make
informed decisions.  Based on the limitations of
availability data, the committee has made an additional
recommendation that the Defense Department institute a
corporate effort to collect software metrics to guide future
policy and management decisions.

The committee developed its recommendations, presented in
detail in Ada and Beyond:  Software Policies for the
Department of Defense, in light of changes in the
environment for military software development.  A decade
ago, the policy preference for Ada had some merit.  Most
software was custom made, and Ada had a good track record in
delivering custom software with higher quality and lower
life-cycle costs.  However, custom Ada solutions are no
longer competitive in many application areas, due to several
trends.  First, software solutions increasingly depend on
commercial-off-the-shelf, or COTS, software, which provides
much of an applications information infrastructure,
including operating system, database management, networking,
user interface, and distributed processing functions.  Much
of this software is written in programming languages other
than Ada, that often do not have readily available
interfaces to programs written in Ada.

Second, software for many application areas is increasingly
developed in so-called product-line architectures, which
enable software assets to be reused across families of
applications.  These product-line solutions are driven by
strongly coupled production factors, including software
components, processes and methods, human resources, and
expertise in particular domains.  In warfighting
applications areas such as weapon control and electronic
warfare, there is little commercial development, and the
Defense Department has established a strong community of
warfighting software developers whose production factors are
oriented to Ada.  However, for the numerous defense
applications in which the market is dominated by commercial
solutions, such as finance and logistics, production factors
have been built around programming languages other than Ada
putting solutions at a disadvantage.

Several other factors have strongly influenced the
committees findings and recommendations.  One is the
Defense Departments increasing emphasis on information
dominance.  According to Secretary of Defense William Perry,
the Defense Departments warfighting strategy sustains and
builds on ... the application of information technology to
gain great military leverage to continue to give us [an]
unfair competitive advantage.  A second factor is that the
Defense Department now has more than 50 million lines of
operational weapon systems software written in Ada, with a
great deal more under development.  Most of this software is
in critical warfighting applications areas.  There are no
quick and cheap ways to translate this software into other
languages.  Polices and investment strategies that weaken
Ada support for this software are very risky.

A third factor is that, while language proliferation has
decreased, "polylingualism" is here to stay.  One goal of
developing Ada was to reduce the proliferation of
programming languages used in defense systems, estimated to
be approximately 450 in the 1970s.  The number of languages
used in defense systems has indeed decreased.  The use of
machine and assembly languages has diminished, and the
number of third-generation languages in use has been
reduced.  However, there has been a rapid increase in
development of fourth-generation languages by the commercial
sector, and increased use of these languages by defense
programs.  A final factor is that choosing a programming
language is one of several key software engineering
decisions.  The requirement to use Ada and the waiver
process both isolate programming language decisions from
other key software engineering decisions.  Modern software
engineering considerations include the choices of computer
and software architectures, COTS components, and milestone
schedules.  This arrangement creates an incentive for
defense programs to make decisions that are not optimal for
the Defense Department as an organization.  Future
programming language decisions need to be part of an
integrated software engineering process.



This report will be available electronically on the World
Wide Web in mid-November at <www2.nas.edu/cstbweb>.  Paper
copies will be made available in December.

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board
National Research Council
210 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  20418

Phone: (202)334-2318
Fax: (202)334-2318
Internet: [log in to unmask]
World Wide Web: WWW2.NAS.EDU/CTSBWEB

Office Location
Milton Harris BLDG.RM 560
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
(Off Whitehaven Street)

Committee on the Past and Present Contexts for the Use of
Ada in the Department of Defense

Barry Boehm, Chair
University of Southern California

Theodore Baker
Florida State University

Wesley Embry
Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Joseph Fox
Template Software

Paul Hilfinger
University of California at Berkeley

Maretta Holden
Boeing Defense and Space Group

J. Elliot B. Moss
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Walker Royce
Rational Software Corporation

William Scherlis
Carnegie Mellon University

S. Tucker Taft
Intermetrics, Inc.

Rayford Vaughn
Electronic Data Systems Corporation

Anthony Wasserman
Interactive Development Environments, Inc.

Barbara Liskov, Special Advisor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Staff

Paul Semenza
Study Director, CSTB



This report will be available electronically on the World
Wide Web in mid-November at <www2.nas.edu/cstbweb>.  Paper
copies will be made available in December.

*******************************************************

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Software
Engineering Information Center (SEIC) "Software Engineering
News Brief" is a compilation of summaries from software
engineering-related articles in trade magazines, newsletters
and press releases. The DISA SEIC welcomes suggestions for,
and pointers to, software engineering-related articles.

Contact the DISA SEIC at:

[log in to unmask]

To subscribe to the "Software Engineering News Brief"
electronic mailing list, send a message to:
        [log in to unmask]
In the body of the message, write:
        subscribe newslist <your name>
To unsubscribe, write:
        unsubscribe newslist
No signatures please.


------- End of Forwarded Message


--
Scott L. Surer
The MITRE Corporation
617-271-8886


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>From [log in to unmask]  Fri Nov  1 16:03:55 1996
Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
Received: from mbunix.mitre.org (mbunix.mitre.org [129.83.20.100]) by
emin16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA18792; Fri, 1 Nov 1996
16:03:54 -0500
Received: from mail91.mitre.org (mail91.mitre.org [129.83.20.13]) by
mbunix.mitre.org (8.7.6/8.7.3/mitre.0) with SMTP id PAA23340; Fri, 1 Nov 1996
15:57:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail91.mitre.org by mail91.mitre.org;
(5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Jun94-0628PM)
        id AA23457; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:57:18 -0500
Received: from MAIL91.MITRE.ORG by MAIL91.MITRE.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
          1.8b) with spool id 252440 for [log in to unmask];
Fri,
          1 Nov 1996 15:57:18 -0500
Received: from mbunix by mail91.mitre.org; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Jun94-0628PM)
id
          AA24015; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:57:17 -0500
Received: from scotty.mitre.org (scotty.mitre.org [129.83.70.27]) by
          mbunix.mitre.org (8.7.6/8.7.3/mitre.0) with SMTP id PAA23306 for
          <[log in to unmask]>; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:57:17 -0500
          (EST)
Received: from charity.mitre.org by scotty.mitre.org (8.6.7/ITF-Bedford) id
          PAA04362; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:57:14 -0500
Received: by charity.mitre.org (4.1/RCF-4C) id AA14294; Fri, 1 Nov 96
16:02:32
          EST
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4 10/10/95
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-Id:  <[log in to unmask]>
Date:         Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:02:31 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: GCCS Distributed Computing Working Group
              <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Scott L. Surer" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      text of NRC report
To: Multiple recipients of list GCCS-DCWG-LIST
              <[log in to unmask]>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2