TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
"Richard L. Conn" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Richard L. Conn
Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:19:55 -0500
text/plain (130 lines)
Hi, William,

Sounds like a totally different culture to me.
But not surprising ... I've heard similar things
thru the Software Subcouncil.  Lockheed Martin
is one company by name, but many companies by
culture.  Buying a company does not necessarily
change its culture overnight (or may ever change
its culture, for that matter).

I absolutely believe you when you describe your
culture, but I still don't think fighting Microsoft
is the way to go.  One thing that is filtering down
is a thrust to go to CMM Level 5.  I'm part of that
at LMAS (we are currently shooting for Level 4).
It's getting harder to get to the higher levels than
it was because the SEI is starting to figure out how
to give the test (CBA IPI, SCA, etc) and put real
meaning behind it.  The CMM is far from perfect (I
don't want to even begin to go into that controversy),
but in my culture at LMAS I've found that it is having
a positive effect by making management become more
involved in software (especially senior management),
giving them measurements to look at about defect
density, productivity, and defect injection and
detection, and making them ask why things are the
way they are and what can be done to improve them.
Weekly analysis and corrective action meetings are
becoming a way of life, and in trying to answer those
questions, the languages emerge as an issue (such as
when we can say that "C++ lets our programmers inject
this defect but Ada doesn't").  Suddenly things start
to look different to management.  That's good.

It's not an answer immediately, but if you are ready
when the question comes up, it may be possible to make
a difference.

It's good to have opinions, isn't it?
Richard Conn, ASE and PAL Manager

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dale Jr, William
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 12:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What the competition looks like
> OK,
> I disagree.....
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard L. Conn [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 8:07 PM
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:      What the competition looks like
> >
> > Hi, Everyone,
> >
> > I've observed with interest the recent discussions
> > about adding an http protocol library to the freeware
> > collection of resource we have for the Ada community.
>         [Dale Jr, William]
>         [SNIP]
> > I'm an Ada fan as well, but I think Ada has its target
> > in arenas other than those in the more popular venue.
> > We need safety critical software for the subways,
> > airlines, medical systems, and other systems where
> > lives are at stake.  At the part of Lockheed where I
> > work, I have not heard a peep about moving in any
> > direction other than Ada for our aircraft, and that's
> > just because it makes sense.
> >
>         [Dale Jr, William]
>         LMMS has almost totally abandoned Ada in favor of C++.
>         Fortran is also heavily favored over anything Ada.  There
>         is a battle to wage even when technical sense says "use Ada."
>         The reason this happens is that all the grunt programmers
>         want C++, Java, WinNT, and MS on their resume.
>         Management sees Ada as a steep training curve ($$$) and the
>         "popular" tools (i.e., MS) as the cheap route to go.
>         All of you above discussion about Mickysofts tools are
>         the reason we MUST challenge them on their own turf.
> > So, I think that we should focus our energies in the
> > direction of the safety critical systems.  We don't
> > have enough resources to divide them otherwise.  Ada
> > is already well-enough designed to let it work with
> > these other technologies (I've already put up a pair
> > of demos on my university website showing a web-based
> > interface to Ada and a Visual Basic front-end to an
> > Ada engine).  I think we should let the others evolve
> > as they are going and we should focus on moving Ada
> > along its line of strength ... a line that distinguishes
> > it from the others, and a line where it is needed,
> > particularly since the others clearly don't fit this
> > need.
> >
>         [Dale Jr, William]
>         Great ideas and tools, but management and the grunt
>         programmers keep jamming the others into just this
>         niche anyway.  It's more career effective to management
>         to "test in" safety than to built it in with good
>         technology and processes up front.
> >  If you want to see the interfaces I've mentioned,
> > here is my university website for them:
> >
> >
> > Just my opinion,
> > Rick
> > ----------------------------------
> > Richard Conn, ASE and PAL Manager
> >
>         [Dale Jr, William]
> William L. Dale
> Just my opinion, too
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> mailto:[log in to unmask]