TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML 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: Prof R Conn <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:45:13 EST
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>; from "Edward Colbert" at Jan 23, 97 6:23 am
X-To: Edward Colbert <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Prof R Conn <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (63 lines)
Hi, Ed,

The asset in question is a set of briefing slides (54 slides) dated 1 Nov 96.
I've reviewed them and feel that they give the issue an even-handed treatment,
without whitewash -- a lot like your paper comparing Ada and C++.  The charter
of the study (Slide 6) is:
  . Review original DoD Ada goals and strategy
  . Compare and contrast original situation with current situation
  . Consider current and future alternatives
  . Propose a refined set of goals and strategies with associated rationale

I found the rationale to be particularly interesting ... it included data
on language comparison (in which Ada won most of the time), information
on the state of the industry (both military and commercial, but often in
summary without backup data), a business case analysis (in which Ada won
for the warfighting software part of the analysis), and, while it does
weaken the DoD position from ALL software to warfighting software, the
recommendations are generally Ada-positive.  It was very clear that the
definitive message was that Ada is definitely the choice for custom systems,
particularly those with hard real-time and/or high reliability requirements.

About the only thing I disagreed with was the emphasis on COTS, NDI, and 4GL
software as a viable solution without considering the length of the life
cycle.  We are already starting to find out that the life of the software
should be a factor in deciding to use COTS et al or not since support for
COTS et al can disappear in a relatively short time, COTS is not a silver
bullet (i.e., like all software, we are still faced with discovered and
undiscovered problems with COTS et al), and, paraphrasing Brooks in his latest
update to the Mythical Man Month, COTS et al fits a nitch (as does most
software).

Anyway, I digress ... does the NRC briefing belong in the Ada Advocacy
Package?  I feel that it does for the reasons above, but, if the majority
does not feel that way, I don't mind moving it.  I think we all agree that
it belongs on the CDROM anyway, it's just a matter of where.

Let's solve this soon offline (I don't think the Team Ada forum is
appropriate ... too large).  So far, both Hal and Ed want it moved and
I don't ... any other opinions from the Ada Advocacy Package group?

Rick

> Hi Rick,
>
> >    Here is the 4th release of the Ada Advocacy Package.  It now includes
> >    the National Research Council briefing on the future of Ada.
> >
> >    Rick
>
> Do you really consider the report as "Advocating" Ada?  Based on the summary
> of the presentation that was circulated and Barry's presentation at TRI-Ada, I don't.
>
> I think you should include the report on the disk, but I don't think it should
> be part of the "Ada Advocacy Package".
>
> Take Care,
> Ed
>
--
Richard Conn, PAL Manager  |  [log in to unmask]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of anyone else.
 =============================================================================

ATOM RSS1 RSS2