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: Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:40:51 -0500
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "Ken Garlington" at Nov 5, 96 02:20:14 pm
Reply-To: Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (48 lines)
>
> Ralph E. Crafts wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Of the 3 criteria (inadequate data, anecdotal evidence, and expert
> > judgment), I believe the most valuable is "expert judgment," yet, in
> > a study which addresses warfighting software, NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF
> > THE COMMITTEE IS/WAS A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY.  In other words, there
> > was not one warfighter on a committee which was commissioned to study
> > warfighting software.  Thus, the "expert judgment" did not include
> > the expertise really needed to ensure value in the recommendations.
>
> Not that I disagree with your overall analysis, but I think we need to
> be even-handed in our discussion of this report. Although the F-22
> program did advocate the continued use of Ada for DoD software, particularly
> for critical software, higher-echelon DoD inputs to this study did not.
> For example, the USAF presentation was extremely critical of Ada. I didn't
> see the Navy presentation first-hand, but I suspect it was also somewhat
> negative toward Ada based on other Navy presentations I have seen. Therefore,
> I'm not sure that having warfighters on the committee would have helped.
> Quite possibly, the results would have tilted even farther from from Ada
> if there had been official DoD representatives on the committee.
>
Moreover, I think NRC _explicitly_ excluded DoD personnel from the
committee, precisely so that the study would be (or would at least
be perceived to be) as independent as possible. I recall seeing something
like that at the time the committee was formed.

I don't know whether any committee members are _ex_-military. Certainly
Boehm has dealt with DoD at close hand for many years.

This whole report is very mixed. I'm anxious for its appearance on the
web, so everyone can delve into the details. Ralph and I were both
there, so we got copies. Ironically, I thought they made a rather
weak case for Ada _in_ war-fighting - it seemed they were concerned
less with Ada's actual strengths than with the 50 MLOC installed base.
That's not peanuts, but focusing on it sorta damns Ada with faint praise.

They also presented, rather weakly IMHO, the facts about Ada's
success in warfighting-like domains like commercial avionics.
They did include one nice success story about the 777, but not much
more.

Just another opinion...

Mike Feldman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2