I agree, but where are the new starts? When we point to something that was
completed years ago and is in maintenance, what are we really saying? I
worked on derivatives of the 777 code, sadly though most were abandoned. It
was Honeywell Ada83 and it'd be easier to start over than port it to 95.
Passengers don't care about the "Ada Inside", and software developers are
familiar with the software side not just the shiny plane, and when they
don't see any evidence that new work is being started using Ada95, they get
nervous. Combined with the lack of people who want to work with Ada, I'm not
I've been an Ada warrior since the late 80s because I believe it makes our
life better. I won the battle, pretty much everyone here agrees that Ada is
the best technical choice, however since we have no chance to staff a new
Ada start I have also lost the war. New "Ada" hires last about 18 months,
and the reason for leaving is "lack of SW technology." Even our hardened Ada
guys are taking c++ classes and trying to get off Ada projects.
We do some awesome SW & systems here, in many cases the best I've seen, and
we are now doing it in c++. It's still great, but we have to be that much
better to pull it off.
And just as a counterpoint to your Windows comment, many people still feel
Mac/Unix is a far superior OS, yet sadly the majority of the people still
From: LJK Software [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 4:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: AdaIC Website revamped
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>Does anyone else see a problem with the headline on the home page being
>about the 777? It's not even Ada95.
But it is a project familiar to readers (the airplane, not the avionics
software). Ada should be a language that does not have to be discarded
with every new model year because it is "outdated". In this sense it is
different from that old Windows NT stuff (two namings ago).